Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

JUVENILES.

Mr. McENTEE: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of juveniles between the ages of 14 and 18 now unemployed?

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls unemployed at the latest available date and the comparable figures for the previous year?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): At 24th September, 1934, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 65,339 unemployed boys and 51,446 unemployed girls, of 14 and under 18 years of age, on the registers of Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in Great Britain. At 25th September, 1933, the corresponding figures were 57,076 and 39,830 respectively. The comparability of these figures is affected by the large increase in the numbers of children reaching the school-leaving age during the year, and by the lowering of the insurance age at the beginning of September, 1934.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman consulting his colleague the President of the Board of Education in regard to these appalling figures, in order to do something to keep these children longer at school?

Mr. STANLEY: I am always consulting my colleagues, but I do not agree with the hon. Member's description of the figures as appalling. In view of the large increase in the number of children leaving school, their absorption into industry is rather remarkable.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do the figures include boys and girls of the working-class only, or do they include all those unemployed between the ages of 14 and 18 years?

Mr. STANLEY: It depends entirely on whether they are on the unemployment register at the Exchange, or at the Juvenile Unemployment Bureau.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from that reply—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have 133 questions on the Order Paper to-day.

OFFICE AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. LUNN: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have examined the question of bringing the black-coated workers within the scope of unemployment insurance?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir. This question will be brought before the committee as soon as possible, but for the present the committee is fully occupied with the question of unemployment insurance for agriculture which the Act required them to consider immediately.

Mr. LUNN: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee has examined the question of the insurance of agricultural workers against unemployment; and. if so, with what result?

Mr. STANLEY: The Statutory Committee is examing this question, and has not yet made a report.

Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive the report?

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot. They have held several meetings and have been hearing evidence.

ALIENS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of aliens, giving the country of origin and type of employment, that have been allowed to enter this country to take up employment during the present year?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes detailed statistical tables, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, have the information circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the totals?

Mr. STANLEY: In view of the way some of the tables are set out, it would be rather misleading.

Following is the reply:

TABLE showing the number of cases in which foreigners have been permitted to take up employment during the period 1st January, 1934, to 30th September, 1934—summarised according to the principal occupations concerned.

(Note.—The table includes, in addition to Permits issued by the Ministry of Labour, permissions granted by the Home Office (after consultation with the Ministry of Labour) in respect of foreigners already in the country.)

Occupations.
Numbers.


Private Domestic Service
3,196


Concert, Theatrical, Variety Hall, Cabaret and Circus Artistes and Musicians
2,630


Foreign correspondents, clerks, and Volunteer Commercial Students 
1,180


Hotel and Restaurant employés
428


Teachers of Foreign Languages
555


Miscellaneous
1517


Total
9,506

TABLE showing the number of cases in which foreigners have been permitted to take employment during the period 1st January, 1934, to 30th September, 1934—summarised according to the nationality of the individuals concerned.

(Note.—The table includes, in addition to Permits issued by the Ministry of Labour, permissions granted by the Home Office (after consultation with the Ministry of Labour) in respect of foreigners already in the country.)

Nationals of:



America, United States of
975


Austria
919


Belgium
199


Czechoslovakia
161


Denmark
403


Estonia
61


Finland
133

BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. HICKS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of insured persons, classified in trade groups, unemployed in the building industry in Great Britain on the latest available date, and comparable figures for 1933.

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

INSURED PERSONS aged 16 to 64 in the building industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain:


Occupation.
24th Sept.,
25th Sept.,



1934.
1933.


Carpenters
11,500
16,836


Bricklayers
4,589
7,169


Masons
3,120
3,793


Slaters and Tilers
1,226
1,103


Plasterers
1,590
2,696


Painters
21,431
24,649


Plumbers
4,577
6,093


Labourers to the above
43,052
50,992


All other occupations
59,456
54,897


Total, Building Industry
150,541
168,228

STATISTICS.

Mr. LUNN: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest available figures for unemployment?

Mr. STANLEY: At 24th September, 1934, the latest date for which figures are
available, there were 2,081,987 unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain.

COTTON OPERATIVES (BENEFIT).

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists in the industrial part of Lancashire owing to the fact that unemployed workers with good insurance records are unable to profit by the provisions of Part I of the Unemployment Act to get extra benefits if their benefit years happen to end before 26th July, 1934, the date of the coming into operation of the Act, unless they are able to qualify for another benefit year by getting 10 stamps on their cards, an extremely difficult thing to do with the present depressed state of the cotton trade; and whether, in order to remove this grievance, he will consider introducing legislation at an early date?

Mr. STANLEY: Part I of the Unemployment Act granted additional days of benefit to claimants who had been eligible for benefit at some time during their benefit years which were current when the Act began to operate. This was generally recognised as a generous provision, and I cannot hold out any hopes of further legislation on the point.

Sir W. BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the intention of Parliament was that these persons should not suffer as a result of the passing of the Act. Is it not hard that, owing to the present depression in Lancashire, it is quite possible that they may never be able to profit by the passing of the Act?

Mr. STANLEY: I must assume that the intention of Parliament is set out in the Act which Parliament passed. I recognise that there are unfortunate cases; that is always the case when new legislation of this kind takes effect from a particular date.

Sir W. BRASS: Is it not a flaw in the Act?

DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.

MABANE: 12
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the anxiety of disabled ex-service men to have those parts of the Unemployment Act put into force which affect the manner in which their pensions shall be
taken into account in calculating need; and whether he can give any indication as to when the Act will be put into force in this respect

Mr. STANLEY: It is my desire to bring these provisions into force as soon as possible and according to present proposals the First Appointed Day as my hon. Friend knows, is to be 7th January. I regret that it is not possible to propose an earlier date.

JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES.

Mr. PALING: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour how many local education authorities have made arrangements for juvenile instruction centres under the Unemployment Act and which authorities have so far failed to do so?

Mr. STANLEY: 77 education authorities are now conducting junior instruction centres or classes or have submitted formal proposals for that purpose. A number of other authorities have proposals under active consideration, while in many areas there will be no need for centres or classes. Considerable delay is inevitable in many areas particularly owing to the difficulty of acquiring sites and accommodation, but I have received no information which suggests that any authority does not intend to carry out its obligation under the Act.

Sir P. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many centres were in existence before, and how many are new centres?

Mr. STANLEY: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I shall be glad to give him the information.

Mr. PALING: Are these centres being provided in places where juvenile unemployment is highest?

Mr. STANLEY: I have given the number of authorities in which they are actually operating, and I have indicated that in other areas arrangements are proceeding.

UNEMPLOYMENT ACT (APPOINTED DAYS).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state if the fixing of the dates when Part II of the Unemployment Act comes into operation was made by the Government or his Department; and whether any consideration was given to the expenditure already incurred by industrial areas?

Mr. STANLEY: Under Section 63 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, the appointed days are to be fixed by the Minister of Labour, subject to the consent of the Treasury. The desire of all concerned is to fix them at the earliest practicable date and as already stated it is proposed that they shall be the 7th January and 1st March respectively.

Mr. MACLEAN: As the Treasury have some say in the fixing of the date will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the large expenditure entailed upon local authorities throughout the country in providing this additional benefit, which should be borne by the Treasury, arid reconsider the matter with them?

Mr. STANLEY: A desire to relieve local authorities of expenditure was of course one of the reasons why we were anxious to make the date as early as possible, but the overriding consideration must be the practicability of having the machinery working. We came to the conclusion that the machinery of the Board could not be in operation before the dates which have been provisionally fixed.

Miss WARD: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered representations from local authorities protesting at the postponement of the appointed day, under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act, to next year; and whether it is proposed to make any offer of financial assistance to meet the increased cost to the authorities adversely affected?

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that representations are being made by various Scottish municipalities against the decision of the Government to fix 1st March, 1935, as the date upon which Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934, comes into operation; and whether, in view of the fact that a much earlier date was generally expected, he will consider the question of granting to local authorities financial assistance towards able-bodied unemployed relief equivalent to what they would have received had the appointed day been fixed as from 1st July, 1934?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have received a number of representations
from local authorities on the subject of the appointed days which, subject to approval by Parliament of the necessary regulations, it is proposed to fix for the purposes of Part II of the Unemployment Act. As regards the second part of each of the questions, I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given on the 18th May last to one of the Members for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), namely, that it is not possible to anticipate the relief which local authorities will receive when the Act is in full operation.

Mr. WALLACE: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to receive a deputation from Scottish local authorities on this matter, and is he aware that that would be regarded as a very friendly gesture on his part and would clear up some unfortunate misunderstandings which have arisen about the fixing of the appointed day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon.. Friend had best communicate with me on the subject.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received a letter this morning from Dumbarton and Clydebank intimating the fact to me that they are sending a deputation to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question, and I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, here in the House of Commons, if he is prepared to receive that deputation?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say why people who voted against this Bill are so anxious to have it brought into operation?

Miss WARD: If my right hon. Friend accedes to the request of Scotland on a communication being addressed to him, will he also accede to the request of England?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend has pointed out the dangers of acceding to any such request.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of the delay in bringing the Bill into operation, great hardship has been inflicted on many of the distressed areas, and that, so far as West Ham is concerned, it makes a difference of £28,000?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Captain STRICKLAND: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women clerks, respectively, have received promotion to the general clerical class in his Department during the past 12 months; and whether in future promotions he will bear in mind the long experience and qualifications of the ex-service men in the "S" class?

Mr. STANLEY: During the 12 months ended 31st October, 1934, 89 male clerks and 87 women clerks were promoted to the general clerical class in the Ministry of Labour. In the selection of these officers for promotion due regard was paid to the experience and qualifications of "S" class clerks and the members of this class will be given similar consideration when the question of further promotions to the general clerical class arises.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Are ex-service men being treated as they should be?

Mr. STANLEY: Yes.

STATIONERY OFFICE (DUPLICATING WORK).

Mr. BANFIELD: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the identifiable and continued net saving per annum during each of the last five financial years resulting to the Stationery Office and other Government Departments from the performance within the Stationery Office by duplicating processes of work which would otherwise be given to outside printing and/or duplicating firms?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The economy due to the centralisation of certain duplicating work in the Stationery Office and to the use, for suitable work, of modern duplicating processes in lieu of printing can be ascertained in individual cases, and is undoubtedly substantial in the aggregate. I regret, however, that it is not possible without undue labour to identify the net annual saving in the aggregate in the manner desired by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

NEW INDUSTRIES (GERMAN FIRMS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIS: 17
asked the Secretary OF State for the Home
Department (1) the number of licences issued to Germans for employment in the various German textile firms that have received permission to open factories in this country, and their duration;
(2) the number of German textile firms that have been granted permission to establish factories in Great Britain during the past six months, the numbers of British and foreigners employed, respectively, and where the factories are situated?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): As I explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) on the 30th July last, there has been no case during the current year in which permission has been granted to German nationals to establish textile factories in this country. In 29 cases during this period permission has been granted for the establishment of making-up factories by Germans. The number of permits issued for the employment of Germans by these firms is 23, in each case for a period of 12 months. I have no precise information as to the number of British subjects employed at present and it must be remembered that many of these enterprises have not yet, or have only recently, started, but I have no reason to doubt that they will ultimately give employment to a substantial number of British subjects. As regards the situation of the factories, I regret that, as explained in my answer on the 30th July, this information cannot be furnished.

IDLE COTTON MILLS (RATES).

Major PROCTER: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that machinery is being removed from idle cotton mills in order to escape the payment of rates, with the result that there is little likelihood of such mills ever being restarted; and whether he will consider the remission of rates on idle cotton mills in order to assist attempts which are now being made to restart these idle mills?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The remission of rates as suggested, and any alteration of the basis of rating an assessment, would require legislation, and I am not in a posi-
tion to promise legislation altering the position established by the Local Government Act, 1929, at the present time.

Major PROCTER: Will the Minister consider introducing the necessary legislation to bring about some obviation of this state of affairs which is causing great distress in Lancashire Can he not see his way to introduce a Measure to make it possible for us to restart these mills instead of allowing the machinery to be removed?

Sir H. YOUNG: The general aspects of the matter are, of course, under consideration. With regard to the particular suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer which I have just given.

Sir W. BRASS: Would the Minister consider introducing a short Measure to allow rates to be removed where the machinery is not actually working, in order that the machinery may be left in the mills?

Mr. RHYS DAVIS: If the Minister does consider any further relief from rates of factories of this kind, will he bear in mind that it only means an increase in the rates on other property, including small cottage property?

Mr. WHITESIDE: Does this not show that high taxation causes permanent unemployment?

SILK AND ARTIFICIAL SILK.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee of 16th May relative to duties on silk and artificial silk?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Command Paper 4633 in which he will find the position fully explained.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is it not a fact that since that Command Paper was issued, several months have elapsed; and is my right hon. Friend aware that during those months the imports of artificial silk in competition with Midland towns has increased tremendously, and is now some 100 per cent. both in value and in volume above that of 1932; and what is he going to do about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR CAR INSURANCE (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).

Mr. PARKINSON: 18.
asked the Home Secretary the number of convictions for failure to insure against third-party risk during the past 12 months?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Statistics are collected for the calendar year and to obtain separate figures for the past 12 months would necessitate calling for a special return. The Return of Offences relating to Motor Vehicles, which was presented to Parliament on 14th May last shows that during 1933 there were 12,486 convictions for failure to insure against third-party risks and that in a further 2,451 cases the court found the charge proved but disposed of it under the Probation of Offenders Act without proceeding to conviction.

Mr. PARKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether prosecutions are tending to increase or decrease?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. PIKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the number of offences compares with the number of licences actually held under third-party insurance?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like to have notice also of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADMOOR ASYLUM (PRISONER'S RELEASE).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to authorise the discharge from Broadmoor Asylum of John Edward Redmond, who was indicted on a charge of arson at the Liverpool assizes in February last and was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In this case the jury returned a special verdict as provided by the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, to the effect that the accused was guilty of the act charged but was insane at the time when the act was done by him. I regret that having regard to all the circumstances I am unable to authorise Redmond's discharge, but the case will be reviewed from time to time with a view to considering his discharge when that course appears to be justified in his own interest and that of the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL OFFENCES (STANDARD FINES).

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the report of the law and parliamentary committee of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, which was adopted by the council of that body on Monday, 30th July, 1934, and which embodied proposals for the payment of standard fines for specified offences without the necessity of the offender attending court; if the suggestions submitted have received the consideration of his Department; and if any action is contemplated?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have carefully considered the report but am unable to support the proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

DANGEROUS DRUGS (ATOPHAN).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the evidence of the professor of pharmacology at Birmingham University and the remarks of the Birmingham coroner at a recent inquest as to the effects of the drug atophan, he will consider the scheduling of this drug as a poison?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am bringing the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the notice of the Lord President of the Council and the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, who are the authorities at present responsible for additions to the Schedule of Poisons.

RURAL WATER SUPPLY SCHEMES.

Mr. PARKINSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health the number of applications for grants for rural water schemes; the amount allocated; and the number of schemes still awaiting approval?

Sir H. YOUNG: Applications for grants have been received from 210 rural district councils, for 1,189 parishes, and from 12 urban district councils, in respect of schemes estimated to cost £3,270,000. Grants totalling £295,000 have been provisionally allocated in respect of schemes for 712 parishes estimated to cost £2,013,000. Schemes in respect of 219 parishes estimated to cost £621,000 are under consideration.

Mr. LEVY: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that is being made in this respect?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir, I think the very rapid progress which is being made shows how great is the utility of this grant.

DUST CHUTE, WESTMINSTER.

Mr. HICKS: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the nuisance and danger to health caused by the new Westminster dust chute in the Grosvenor basin; whether he is aware that there is a persistent offensive odour in the neighbourhood, ceaseless noise at night, making sleep difficult if not impossible, arid frequently the atmosphere is polluted with dust; and whether, in view of this menace to the health of the residents in the neighbourhood, he will have inquiries made and make representations to the Westminster City Council on the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: My attention has been drawn to this matter and I have communicated with the Westminster City Council. The council state that the City Medical Officer of Health is satisfied that there is no substance in the complaints. I am informed that the plant which has been put down is the most up-to-date that could be obtained. Further inquiries will, however, be made.

Mr. HICKS: Can the Minister give us any information as to when he is likely to get a reply to the inquiry?

Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps I may communicate with the hon. Member when I have further information.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Miss RATHBONE: 51.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of maternity and child welfare authorities; and how many of these authorities exercise their powers under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, to provide milk and food for mothers during the last three months of pregnancy and during lactation?

Sir H. YOUNG: There are 422 maternity and child welfare authorities in England and Wales. The great majority of them exercise the powers referred to in the question, but the actual number is not available. In the circular
addressed to local authorities on the 10th October on the subject of maternal mortality, I took the opportunity of stressing the importance of using these powers in appropriate cases.

Miss RATHBONE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to ascertain the exact figures?

Sir H. YOUNG: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

COLLIERY REFUSE TIPS, ASTLEY.

Mr. TINKER: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state what steps have been taken by the colliery company to deal with the burning colliery refuse tips at Gin Pits, Astley, near Tyldesley, in view of the complaints by residents living near to them that their health is being affected by the fumes coming from them?

Sir H. YOUNG: One of my inspectors has twice visited the tip. He reported that the company have discontinued the tipping of any kind of material upon the tip, except lime refuse and earth for the purpose of smothering the fire. My inspector will continue to watch the matter closely.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for a further report immediately? I went there myself on Friday last, and the fumes are almost as bad as ever, and the complaints are just the same, so that I shall be glad if he will press the matter again.

Sir H. YOUNG: I think that can only be because the putting of earth on the lire has not yet had its full effect.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for a further report?

Sir H. YOUNG: As I mentioned in my answer to his question, I am watching the matter through my inspector.

IMPORTED MILK PRODUCTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will cause investigation to be made into the health of the animals producing the milk and into the cleanliness of the manufacture of the milk products imported from foreign countries?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not consider that such an investigation is needed at the present time. The interests of public
health are protected by the facts that imported milk is subject to special bacteriological conditions which do not apply to home produced milk and that all milk products are subject to examination at the port of entry to ensure that they are fit for human consumption.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can milk drawn from a diseased cow and made up into butter in a dirty condition be considered to be fit for human consumption?

Sir H. YOUNG: That inquiry begs the question. The state of affairs is that we have a very effective safeguard in the inspections to which I have referred at the port of entry.

Mr. LAMBERT: But does the inspection of my right hon. Friend enable him to detect whether the milk comes from diseased cows?

Sir H. YOUNG: There is a very substantial measure of practical control.

MATERNAL DEATHS.

Mr. PALING: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the annual report of the chief medical officer of the Ministry for 1933 showed that the councils of eight counties, seven county boroughs, and five metropolitan boroughs have sent no confidential reports on maternal deaths to his Department; whether he has taken any steps to obtain such reports from these local authorities; and what action, if any, he has taken in regard to authorities which have furnished reports which do not include any comment or interpretation and show no evidence of careful investigation such as is regarded as essential by the chief medical officer?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have no power to require the submission of such reports, but every opportunity is taken of urging upon the local authorities the importance of co-operating in the desired inquiries. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that even in cases where the reporting medical officer does not feel justified in furnishing any comment on, or interpretation of, the facts disclosed, the reports do not necessarily lack evidence of careful investigation. I may add that the medical officers of my Department who examine the reports have the advantage of the
advice of two consultant obstetricians whose services have been retained for the purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH INDUSTRY.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is contemplating the imposition of any censorship upon cinema news reels?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, but I have thought it my duty to see representatives of this branch of the industry and to point out that it rests with them so to handle their material as to make it unnecessary for the Government to consider the imposition of any censorship on news reels.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Is it not a fact that the recent assassination pictures were revolting?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have heard complaints on that subject and that is why I have seen the industry.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to make fresh safety regulations under the Films Act, 1909?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am glad of this opportunity to state that the revision of the Regulations made in 1923 under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, has been under consideration for some time past. The intention is to adapt the Regulations to present conditions, and one of the points to be dealt with is the relaxation, in favour of slow-burning films, of certain requirements necessary for fast-burning films. No draft has yet been completed and it is, I think, scarcely necessary for me to add that before any new Regulations are finally made, full consultation will take place betwen my Department and the different interests involved.

Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety among education authorities and scientific bodies that these regulations would preclude them from carrying on these useful activities, and may I assume that his answer covers consultation with such bodies?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes, certainly.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Is it not a fact that the 16 millimetre films are
practically non-inflammable and therefore quite safe?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not express any view on that technical point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD (SUNDAY BAKING).

Mr. BANFIELD: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the spread of Sunday baking and delivery of bread in London and elsewhere; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the extent of this practice, which is causing great concern to both employers and workmen?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received representations on the subject of the baking and delivery of bread on Sundays in the London area. If the hon. Member has evidence of any general extension of this practice, I shall be prepared to consider it, but he will appreciate that I have no statutory powers on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RABBIT-TRAPPING.

Mr. MANDER: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to investigate the present position with regard to the use of steel rabbit-traps; and what effective alternative methods of trapping are available?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I do not think it necessary to set up such a committee.

Mr. MANDER: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of ascertaining the real facts about alternative methods before any question of legislation is considered?

Oral Answers to Questions — HAWKERS (DOOR-TO-DOOR CANVASSING).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider whether any steps can be taken to reduce the growing nuisance of canvassing for the sale of articles at private houses?

Sir J. GILMOUR: A pedlar or hawker selling goods from door to door, with certain exceptions, must take out a pedlar's or hawker's licence, as the case may require, and the issue of these
licences is in each case dependent on the issuing authority being satisfied as to the good character of the applicant. Any further restrictions on canvassing for the sale of articles at private houses would require legislation and I have no evidence before me which would appear to justify any such action.

Mr. LEWIS: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this growing practice is not merely a nuisance in those homes where servants are kept to answer the door, but is a greater hardship in those homes where no servant is kept?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as a greater crime to sell things at doors than to buy votes at an election?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORMWOOD SCRUBS PRISON.

Mr. WEST: 27.
asked the Home Secretary what is the accommodation of Wormwood Scrubs prison; and what was the maximum number of prisoners detained there in 1913 and 1933?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In 1913 there was accommodation for 1,420 and the maximum number of prisoners was 1,393. As a result of alterations and arrangements for the reservation of some cells for special purposes, the number of cells available for ordinary use is now 1,244. The maximum number of prisoners in 1933 was 1,163.

Mr. WEST: In view of the decreasing number of prisoners at Wormwood Scrubs, is there any hope of their being transferred elsewhere and the site made available for local housing needs?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (CARDROOM WORKERS).

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the advisability of scheduling cardroom workers under the existing Workmen's Compensation Acts so that such workers incapacitated, either partially or totally, as a result of inhaling fibre dust, shall be entitled to compensation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, this matter has received my full and sympathetic consideration. There would be great difficulties in meeting the position by adding to the schedule of industrial diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, having regard in particular to the absence of any special clinical features which would enable the lung condition of the workman to be diagnosed as due to the dust; but I have written to the Employers' Federation urging them to consider some special scheme and suggesting that they should arrange for an early meeting of representatives of both sides to explore the problem further.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: While the right hon. Gentleman is negotiating with employers will he again look into the possibility of including these sufferers within the Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act so that they may not have to rest, in the end, on any charitable fund set up by employers?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We are looking very carefully into all the aspects of the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Mr. McENTEE: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend has nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on the 16th of July last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. McENTEE: In view of the figures given earlier in the day by the Minister of Labour, that there are about 126,000 children between 14 and 18 years of age out of work, will the hon. Gentleman ask his Noble Friend to reconsider this matter?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said that the absorption rate was very satisfactory, and, as regards areas where unemployment is heavy, the hon. Member has to bear in mind certain provisions of the recent Unemployment Act.

Mr. McENTEE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it satisfactory when 126,000 children are considered to be permanently out of work?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the bulk of those children have been out of work only a few days?

Mr. McENTEE: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state the names of the local authorities that have submitted schemes for the raising of the school-leaving age to 15, giving the number of schemes sanctioned by his Department and where situated?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Prior to 1931 five local education authorities, Caernarvonshire, East Suffolk, Plymouth, Cornwall and Bath, had, with the sanction of the Board of Education, raised the school-leaving age in their areas by byelaw to 15 years. Since that date similar byelaws have been sanctioned for Chesterfield, Lowestoft and Cheltenham; and, with the Board's concurrence, the authorities of Gloucester City and of Penzance have published their intention to make such a byelaw. Definite proposals for similar byelaws have been received by the Board from the authorities of Barrow-in-Furness, Winchester and Denbighshire. There is also a proposal from Barnsley to raise the age to 14½ instead of 15. These proposals are still under consideration. Proposals were also made by the authorities of Burnley and Huddersfield, but were refused.

Mr. McENTEE: Can the hon. Gentleman give the reasons why those last two are being refused?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Partly because the education arrangements proposed were not satisfactory, and partly because the areas are not sufficiently self-contained to prevent difficulties of employment arising with neighbouring areas.

Mr. T. SMITH: When will a decision be reached in the case of Barnsley?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I cannot say without notice.

SCHOOL LEAVERS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the number of children who left the public
elementary schools during the year ended 31st March, 1934, and, for comparison, the number who left during the previous 12 months; and if he has had any reports as to the effects on the employment market of the increased number of children leaving school during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1934?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The number of children who left the public elementary schools for employment during the year ended 31st March, 1934, was 533,140. The corresponding figure for the year ended 31st March, 1933, was 371,026. With regard to the second part of the Question, my Noble Friend is informed by the Minister of Labour that reports received by him indicate that the additional number of children who left school during the year ended the 31st March, 1934, have been readily absorbed into employment in many parts of the country, notably in most of the industrial centres of the south-eastern and midland areas. In a number of these areas, despite the additional numbers available, it has not been possible to meet all demands for juvenile labour. On the other hand, in some parts of South Wales and on the north-east coast, and in certain other areas, the larger number of children leaving school has increased the volume of juvenile labour surplus to local requirements.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS.

Miss WARD: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can report on the negotiations which have been taking place between the Board of Education and the representatives of the teachers relative to the question of the pensions of teachers who retire during the operation of the economy cuts?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend has informed the National Union of Teachers of the conditions which would need to be attached to any arrangement for securing that the pensions of teachers retiring during the currency of the economy cuts should not be reduced by reason of those cuts, and has inquired whether, on the assumption that time could be found for the introduction of the necessary legislation, and that there was general agreement on the part of the other parties concerned, the Executive of the Union would desire the introduction of legislation on the lines indicated
by him. My Noble Friend has not yet been informed of the wishes of the Executive in the matter.

Mr. ALBERY: Can my hon. Friend say whether the conditions offered imply that sacrifices will be called for from other teachers?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The matter is rather complicated. The conditions of the Government's offer are indicated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Fairfield (Mr. Brocklebank), on 12th July last, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. ALBERY: Will my hon. Friend press upon his colleague the fact that this matter is causing considerable concern?

CINEMATOGRAPH DISPLAYS.

Mr. WHITE: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has any record of accidents in primary or secondary schools which have been caused by cinematograph displays?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: No case of an accident caused by a cinematograph display has been brought to the notice of the Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR RELIEF.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on the last available date, giving separate figures for men, women, and children?

Mr. T. SMITH: 38.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales on the last available date?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 35.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in Wales on the last available date?

Sir H. YOUNG: The total number of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales—including dependants but excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals—on Saturday, lath October, 1934, was 1,310,668. Of these, 134,854 were chargeable in Wales with Monmouth. The weekly returns from which these figures have been obtained do not distinguish
the numbers of men, women and children, but it is estimated that 29 per cent. of the total consisted of men, 35 per cent. of women and 36 per cent. of children.

Mr. SMITH: Can the Minister say how these figures compare with the figures for the corresponding period of 1931?

Sir H. YOUNG: Not from memory, but I shall be very happy indeed to give the hon. Member an answer, if he puts down a question to that effect.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are not all the adult males in receipt of Poor Law relief on grounds of unemployment included in the live register of unemployed persons?

Sir H. YOUNG: I should like time to, consider that question.

Captain STRICKLAND: 40.
asked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to secure the co-operation of Poor Law authorities in not including the first. 20s. of ex-servicemen's wounds or disability pensions when assessing the means of an applicant for relief; whether such steps have proved effective; and, if not, whether he will seek legislative power to secure the right of such allowance?

Sir H. YOUNG: I may refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Bill dealing with this question which I introduced yesterday.

Captain STRICKLAND: Is the Minister aware of the great feeling of satisfaction and gratitude experienced by the ex-servicemen at this step which has been taken to alleviate their sufferings;: and, further will he see that the Measure comes into operation not later than the date on which the Unemployment Act will come into operation?

Sir H. YOUNG: I will certainly take into consideration my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING AND VALUATION, LONDON.

Mr. G. HARVEY: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now give the House any indication as to when the promised new Rating and Valuation Bill for London will be produced, thereby displacing the present operating Act of 1868 from the Statute Book?

Sir H. YOUNG: The introduction of a Bill on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend is still under consideration.

Mr. HARVEY: Is the Minister aware that this matter is very serious and very pressing?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTION LITERATURE, SOUTHGATE.

Mr. THORNE: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a certain organisation in Southgate making indiscriminate use of the borough council's crest on their election literature; and whether the sanction of the council was obtained to use the crest; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter, but it is not one in which I have power to take any action.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS (TYNESIDE).

Miss WARD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has had his attention called to important conferences taking place on the North-East Coast; and whether he will afford Parliamentary time to discuss the problems of this area?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have already promised to give a day to discuss the reports of the investigators into the distressed areas, and the problems of those areas. Owing to a personal communication that I have received from my hon. Friend, I understand that her question has reference also to the possibility of building a second Cunarder on the Tyne. I am fully aware of the views of the representatives of the North-East Coast as to this. A question on the subject is, in fact, to be answered this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. McKEAG: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any representation has been made by the Government to the Cunard Company that the sister ship to the "Queen Mary" should be built on the Tyne; and, if not, whether it is proposed to make any such representation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No decision has as yet been taken to build a sister ship
to the "Queen Mary"; and in these circumstances the question does not arise.

Mr. McKEAG: May I ask whether, in consideration of the substantial financial assistance given by the State in connection with the building of these vessels, the Government did or did not reserve to themselves the right to make recommendations or stipulations as to where these vessels should be built.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question does not really arise because no question has yet arisen of building a sister ship.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR DEFENCE MEASURES.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to issue the safety code for civilians during air raids?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on the 30th July last during the course of the Debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. For the present I can say nothing further, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are fully alive to the problem.

Mr. MANDER: May we take it that it is still intended to circulate this information and that the proposal has not been abandoned, as was reported in the Press?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do hope that my hon. Friend will believe nothing he sees in the Press, especially that which, I assume, he patronises.

Mr. TINKER: Have the Cabinet considered the setting up of an international police force to do away with all air raids?

Mr. MANDER: Is the Prime Minister aware that I always read the "News Letter"?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite reliable.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS TRAFFIC.

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether any officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Foreign Office at home or abroad are permitted under any circumstances to assist British armament manufacturers in the sale of their products to foreign Governments?

The PRIME MINISTER: The business of British armament manufacturers in the sale of their products abroad is carried on through their own commercial agents. It is the custom of His Majesty's representatives abroad to assist, always in accordance with established international practice, the interest of business firms in this country. His Majesty's representatives abroad, however, do not canvass for armament orders and may not act as agents, and no serving member of the Defence Services is permitted to act on behalf of or to assist any armament or any other firm in the sale of its products except within the limits above mentioned and in order to secure that British firms shall not be handicapped in competing with other firms receiving Government assistance.

Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to certain evidence given on this subject before the United States Senatorial inquiry, and has he any comments to make?

The PRIME MINISTER: On that, as on all other matters, we have nothing whatever to conceal. We shall wait until we find not only statements but proofs.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does my right hon. Friend's answer apply to paint for painting battleships?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RIBBON DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. WHITE: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to include in his housing legislation provisions to enable local authorities to control ribbon development?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I do not think provisions of this kind could conveniently be included in housing legislation.

Mr. WHITE: Has my right hon. Friend any other proposals in mind which will meet the great feeling that there is in the country at the present time?

Sir H. YOUNG: The matter is under consideration. The answer I have given applies only to housing.

SLUM CLEARANCE, WITHYPOOL, SOMERSET.

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether his atten-
tion has been drawn to the order for demolition of certain cottages at Withy-pool, Somerset; and, in view of the age of the occupants and of their long family association with these cottages, and of the heavy loss involved, will he make such arrangements as will obviate their demolition?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to this matter, and I am making inquiries, but my hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the appeal provided by Statute in cases of this kind from the Order of the local authority lies to the County Court, and I have no direct jurisdiction.

Sir W. SMITHERS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of the appeal is quite beyond the means of the inhabitants? In view of the urgency of the matter and of his unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

CLEARANCE AREAS.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give an assurance that he will not confirm any order by a local authority seeking to include in a clearance area, under the Housing Act, 1930, a building fit for habitation, merely by reason of its bad arrangement in relation to its neighbours or on account of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. As I have previously stated, the policy of the Government is on the lines referred to in this question.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be very general satisfaction with that reply, and will he include a provision of this nature in the legislation which he contemplates bringing before the House?

Sir H. YOUNG: I must not anticipate legislation that is to be presented, but I would again emphasise the fact that the actual administration has been in accordance with this practice throughout.

Captain WATERHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is unable to bind his successor, and will he bear this in mind when he comes to frame the legislation?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, that is so.

Mr. PIKE: Will my right hon. Friend also give an assurance that back-to-back property is not necessarily property that must be cleared unless it comes within other meanings of the Act?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. LEONARD: 55.
asked the Minister of Health what factors in employment were responsible for his decision that work in public wash-houses and baths was non-insurable; and if he is aware that the ordinary risks of industry for which the insurance schemes were created apply to workers in those establishments?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have given no such general decision. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any individual employé engaged in work of the kind referred to in the question whose employment I have decided not to be insurable, I will look into the case and communicate further with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether and, if so, when he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the departmental committee on industrial assurance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position at the moment to make any statement on this subject, but it is clearly not possible to deal with it in the remainder of the present Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

MONETARY POLICY.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make any further statement with regard to monetary policy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no reason for making any further statement on the monetary policy of His Majesty's Government since there has been no change in this policy since I last explained it to the House.

Mr. MASON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if Great Britain took steps to stabilise the pound at or about the present exchange other countries would follow our example?

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (EXEMPTIONS)

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many musical and dramatic associations have obtained exemption from Entertainments Duty since the recent decision that the Old Vic and Sadler's Wells were not now liable to such duty; whether such exemption is based solely on the fact that the entertainment must be of an educational nature and not established for profit; and whether in this event he will consider providing similar exemption for any entertainment which is educational in a similar sense and on which no profit is made?

Mr. COOPER: The answer to the first part of the question is 43; with regard to the second part, the exemption is in every case governed by Section 1 (5) (d) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, the essential conditions being that the entertainment shall be provided for partly enducational purposes by a society, institution or committee not conducted or established for profit; with regard to the third part, I am not prepared to consider such an extension of the exemption as is suggested.

Mr. PIKE: Does my hon. Friend suggest that musical festivals are held without intention towards profit?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.

Mr. PIKE: Well, they are exempt.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. D. MASON: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any immediate prospect of the embargo on foreign loans being removed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement which I made to the House on the 19th July last in reply to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles (Captain A. Ramsay). The position today remains as indicated in that statement, and I see no immediate prospect of any change.

Mr. MASON: Would it not be possible to allow carefully guarded credits to be arranged, as in the case of Russia, so as to stimulate our foreign trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think can add anything to the statement I made.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. HANNON: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement indicating the measure of success which has attended the operations of the Milk Marketing Board?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): In accordance with Section 10 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I will lay before Parliament, before the end of this year, a report upon the operation of the agricultural marketing schemes in force during the current year. In the circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend will not press, at the present time, for a separate statement upon the operation of the Milk Marketing Scheme.

Mr. HANNON: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. Will he indicate when it will be possible to make this general report on the marketing schemes?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think towards the end of December.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is taking notice of some of the decisions of the courts on the Milk Marketing Board?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many trials for infringement of the Milk Marketing Scheme have been carried out since the inception of the scheme; whether these trials were carried out in secret, or in public; and whether, in view of the undesirability of continuing trials of a secret nature in this connection, he will take steps to arrange for the alteration of the marketing scheme in this respect?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, 520 cases of alleged infringement of the Milk Marketing Scheme have come before the Milk Marketing Board since
the inception of the scheme. While it has not been the practice of the board to sit in public when dealing with these cases, I am informed that they have never refused admission to any member of the public who desired to be present. The board have further informed me that an application has been received from representatives of the Press to attend a meeting of the board to be held to-day to consider some such cases and that arrangements have been made for them to be present.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the aggregate costs imposed upon the 500 persons who have been brought before the Board?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir; the Act which my hon. Friend helped to put through the House does not make provision for that information to be collected.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons are invited to attend before the Board whether they are residing in Yorkshire or Northumberland? That is the only opportunity they have of submitting their own cases, and will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Board so that, instead of these persons being invited to attend in London, there may be regional courts where cases can be dealt with?

Mr. ELLIOT: No doubt certain alterations may very properly be made in these arrangements. I have no doubt that questions such as my hon. Friend has asked will bring this matter to the notice of the Milk Marketing Board.

EGG AND POULTRY COMMISSION (CHAIRMAN).

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the report of the Poultry Commission will be issued?

Mr. GLOSSOP: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture who is now the chairman of the Poultry Commission; and when the Commission will present its report?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am glad to have this opportunity of informing the House that I have invited Mr. F. N. Blundell to be Chairman of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs and Poultry for England and Wales, and that he has accepted my invitation. Mr. Blundell has served as a member of this Commission since its con-
stitution. He also rendered valuable services as a member of the Imperial Economic Committee from 1926 to 1931, and as a member of the Reorganisation Commission for Milk. I understand that the Commission is now preparing its report which it hopes to complete by the end of this month.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's answer that there are no more Socialists available for these posts?

BARLEY.

Major CARVER: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the nature of the suggestions which have been made to his Department in favour of the adoption of any agreed-on scheme of relief for the barley growers of the country?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the National Farmers' Union have recently had under consideration certain proposals concerning imported foreign barleys, but these have not yet been brought before me.

Major CARVER: In view of the very low price for home-grown barley, will the right hon. Gentleman consider recommending an increased duty on foreign barley?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is aware that applications for increased duties must come before the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. LIDDALL: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the disappointing market so far for this season's malting barley, he will request brewers and maltsters to furnish annual returns of the quantity of home and imported barley, respectively, used by them?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have no power to require brewers and maltsters to make returns of the quantities of home-grown and imported barley used by them. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the Brewers' Society have informed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they have strongly recommended their members to continue to adhere to the undertaking given last year in regard to the purchase of home grown barley. Although the market for malting barley is reported to be slow at present, there is no reason for assuming
that the undertaking will not again be carried out or that it will not result in benefit to barley growers.

IMPORTED EGGS.

Major CARVER: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how it is proposed to effect the reduction of 10 per cent. aggregate in foreign imported eggs in shell for the first quarter of 1935?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is hoped to secure the desired reduction of 10 per cent. in imports of eggs in shell from foreign sources in the first quarter of 1935 by voluntary arrangements with the exporting countries. The consideration of these arrangements is now proceeding.

BUTTER FACTORIES.

Mr. HALES: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can say how many butter factories, excluding factories engaged solely in blending, there are, respectively, in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Denmark and Australia; and whether he is proposing to take steps to increase the number of butter factories in the United Kingdom?

Mr. ELLIOT: I regret that I am not in possession of the information necessary to answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question; as regards the second part, the answer is in the negative.

POTATO MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a large number of small distributors who distribute the produce of smallholders and market gardeners around London have been refused a licence by the Potato Marketing Board to buy and sell potatoes; that many of these men have been engaged in this occupation for periods up to 30 years and have, by this decision, had their livelihood taken away with only a few days' notice and without any reason given, whereas licences have been granted to similar distributors who have only been engaged in the industry for short periods; and will he state on what principles this discrimination has been exercised and what compensation is to be available for those who livelihood has been taken away by the decision of the board?

Mr. ELLIOT: I take it that the hon. Member has in mind a recent determination of the Potato Marketing Board that, subject to an exemption as regards cer-
tain classes of sales, registered producers shall not sell potatoes except to merchants authorised by the board. I have no knowledge of the cases to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no doubt the board would be prepared to consider any representations or additional information which may be available regarding them. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, provides machinery for the consideration of complaints about the operation of agricultural marketing schemes. As regards the last part of the question, there is no provision in the Potato Marketing Scheme for the payment of compensation to merchants who are not authorised by the board.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the notice refusing these licences is dated so recently as 27th October, and was received on 29th October, and that the scheme comes into force to-day? Will he give the House a guarantee that none of these men, if pursuing the calling they have been following for 30 years, will be fined without further inquiry having been made into the particular cases?

Mr. ELLIOT: These are matters of regulation within the industry itself, and it would not be possible for me to give assurances regarding the working of a scheme which has been passed by this House.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Can the Minister tell us what principle is being followed in the granting or refusing of these licences?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. There are a number of general principles which have guided the Board in approving merchants, but, as my hon. Friend will realise, one of the considerations which is constantly pressed upon the agricultural industry is the necessity of reducing middlemen's costs, and it is very difficult to say at what point injustice arises when this process is being carried out.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Further to that, may I ask whether it is not a fact that these men, who have been following this occupation, have been carrying it out so as to supplant the middlemen. Is it not a fact that what they are doing is dealing direct between the producer and the actual retailer?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure it is quite impossible for me to discuss the operations of the Board by question and answer across the Floor of the House. A scheme has been considered and has been passed by Parliament, and within the limits laid down by Parliament the responsibility is that of the Board and the organised producers, and not of this House.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I wish to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this question on the Adjournment on the first available opportunity?

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. THORNE: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the number of farms, the value of cattle, furniture, farming implements and personal goods that have been distrained for non-payment of tithe; and whether the total value of the goods distrained is equal to the tithes due?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. The collection and recovery of tithe rentcharge is not a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-GERMAN PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. EADY: 87.
to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make a statement in connection with the collection of commercial debts from Germany; and if there is any prospect of a satisfactory arrangement being made.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 88.
to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House of the nature of the agreement between Germany and this country as to the payment by Germany of commercial debts owing to this country.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and by leave of the House, I beg to make a statement on the result of the negotiations for a Clearing Agreement with Germany.
The United Kingdom Delegation under the leadership of Sir Frederick Leith-
Ross, who have been in Berlin during recent weeks, have been negotiating with the German Government representatives with a view to reaching a reasonable basis for the settlement of the outstanding commercial debts and to ensuring the continuance, under acceptable conditions, of current trade between the two countries. For some time during the negotiations it appeared that no solution of the difficulties could be found except along the lines of a Clearing Agreement, in spite of the drawbacks of such a system and the hindrances which it inevitably places upon the flow of trade. A draft Clearing Agreement which, it was hoped, would avoid the major difficulties inherent in an arrangement of this kind and the pitfalls which have prevented the successful working of similar agreements between Germany and other countries, has been agreed with the German representatives and initialed.
Towards the end of the negotiations the German Government put forward an alternative proposal with the object of safeguarding payment for current exports of United Kingdom goods to Germany and enabling the outstanding debts to be liquidated without setting up a clearing system. The basis of this proposal is as follows:
The German Government will guarantee that 55 per cent. of the value of German exports to the United Kingdom shall be definitely earmarked for the payment of United Kingdom exports to Germany. This allocation should, according to the normal trend of Anglo-German trade, be sufficient to enable United Kingdom exports to Germany to be paid for in full.
As regards the liquidation of outstanding commercial debts the Reichsbank will provide immediately a sum of not less than £400,000 for this purpose and will also expedite their liquidation by the realisation of outstanding German commercial claims on the United Kingdom whether by a credit operation or otherwise. In so far as these measures are not sufficient, the Reichsbank will set aside an additional percentage (provisionally fixed at 10 per cent.) of the value of German exports to the United Kingdom sufficient to ensure the liquidation of all outstanding debts within 12 months.
The sondermarks standing in the Special Account under the Anglo-German Exchange Agreement of August last, as well as those waiting to go into that account, will continue to be sold by the Bank of England; and further arrangements will be made whereby, with the help of the credit operation and, if necessary, of a charge upon the 55 per cent. earmarked for current trade purposes, the sondermarks will be liquidated within a period of three months.
At the outset foreign exchanges certificates for the import of United Kingdom goods into Germany will be issued without restriction, but the German Government, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, may temporarily restrict in so far as necessary the issue of such certificates. But in exercising this control they will give special consideration to exports to Germany which are particularly important to this country, namely, coal and coke, herrings, yarns, tissues, and textile manufactures.
The German Government further agree that they will continue as from the 1st January, 1935, to pay full interest on bonds of the Dawes and Young Loans in the beneficial ownership of British holders on the 15th June last, in the same manner as provided for by the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement of 4th July last and that they will offer to British holders of non-Reich loans 4 per cent. Funding Bonds guaranteed by the German Government and exempt from transfer restrictions, on the understanding that the British holders who accept this offer take the Funding Bonds in full settlement of any coupons funded.
An agreement has now been reached with the German Government embodying these arrangements. This agreement embodies the principles which it has been the object of His Majesty's Government to attain with a view to safeguarding British interests as far as possible in the situation created by the German exchange measures. In case it should not prove successful and should have to be terminated, provision has been made for its replacement by a clearing arrangement, and letters have been exchanged placing it on record that in this event the clearing arrangement which has been initialed shall thereupon come into force. The text of the new agreement and of this exchange of letters will be published as a Command Paper this evening.
The agreement represents the best that could have been reached in all the circumstances. At the same time I should not like the House to think that it will automatically remove all the difficulties from the path of Anglo-German trade and I suggest to our exporters that they should continue to proceed with caution.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish only to put a question to the Prime Minister on this statement, if Mr. Speaker will allow me. It has been customary until to-day to give the Opposition notice when a statement of this kind is to be made. I think that on nearly every occasion I have had a sight of the statement that was to be made, and, although I do not want to make any grievance of it because it is probably an inadvertence, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will in future let us know when a statement of this kind is to be given.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House. The circumstance in which it was necessary to make the statement now was as follows. A question was down in the name of one of my hon. Friends asking for information on this particular point, and it was just shut out owing to Questions having been rather long continued. It would have been a pity not to get the statement out at once for financial reasons which would occur, of course, to the right hon. Gentleman, and the only other way to get it out was by a statement now. I apologise for not having given notice before.

Mr. LANSBURY: We have had no opportunity of considering it in order to put questions. I am really asking that when a statement of this kind is to be made we should have a sight of it beforehand.

Mr. ALBERY: In view of the importance of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made and the impossibility of gathering all that it contains merely from hearing it, will the House have any opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Command Paper—a White Paper—will be available, I hope, this evening and will give all the information. Perhaps if my hon. Friend arid others will consider it, then we might consider whether it is necessary to carry it any further.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman define rather more closely the words "non-Reich loans" given in the statement?

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to send a resuméof the agreement to East Anglia at once?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what is the business for next week, and also how long the right hon. Gentleman intends us to sit to-night if the Motion on the Paper in his name is carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is the business for next week:
On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, Betting and Lotteries Bill [Lords] Committee stage, and, if there is time, other Orders on the Paper—that is assuming that the Motion in my name is carried.
The business for Thursday and Friday will be announced later.
With reference to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-day, I hope the sitting will not be very long, but we would like to get the three Resolutions dealing with the publication of the Report on India, the Betting and Lotteries Bill, and the appointment of new judges, as well as the remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Government would also like to get the Second Reading of the Dindings Agreement Bill, which is understood to be non-contentious.

Mr. LANSBURY: As no one knows anything about the Dindings Bill I think that may be non-contentious, but there may very well be a long discussion on one or other of the Motions which the right hon. Gentleman desires to get, and if that be so I take it we shall not be expected to sit late in order to get them through, because there are two subjects arising on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which we want to discuss which may take a little time.

The PRIME MINISTER: Quite honestly, I do not want the House to sit unreasonably late, but we have to get a certain amount of business through in a very short and limited time, limited on
account of special circumstances on this occasion, and I do hope it will be possible to get the three Resolutions. I can assure the House that we are very reasonable in our demands, but we must get the business through and the work of the Session wound up in due course.

Mr. MAXTON: Could the Prime Minister tell us how many nights next week the Eleven o'Clock Rule will not be suspended?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that when we do suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule next week it will be more as a precaution than as a necessity.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Second

Reading of the Electricity Bill will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will repeat that question on another occasion I shall be able to answer. There are several outstanding matters.

Mr. PIKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is a national necessity to spend three days on the Committee stage of a Betting Bill for which the Government have no mandate?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

"The House divided: Ayes, 297 Noes, 46.

Division No. 377.]
AYES
3.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Granville, Edgar


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clarry, Reginald George
Graves, Marjorie


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armaah)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Conant, R. J. E.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cook, Thomas A.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cooke, Douglas
Hacking, Rt. Hen. Douglas H.


Apsley, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Hales, Harold K.


Assheton, Ralph
Copeland, Ida
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bailey. Eric Alfred George
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Harris, Sir Percy


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hartland, George A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Crossley, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Herbert. Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bernays, Robert
Denville, Alfred
Holdsworth, Herbert


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dixey, Arthur C. N. 
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Blindell, James
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Hornby, Frank


Borodale, Viscount
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bossom, A. C.
Duggan. Hubert John
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Boulton, W. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Dunglass, Lord
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Eady, George H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bracken, Brendan
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Iveagh, Countess of


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jamieson, Douglas


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Ker, J. Campbell


Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Burnett, John George
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Campbell. Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Law Sir Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Leckie, J. A.


Carver, Major William H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leighton. Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Levy, Thomas


Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)
Goff, Sir Park
Lewis, Oswald


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Liddall, Walter S.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Petherick, M.
Somerset, Thomas


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Llewellin, Major John J.
Pike, Cecil F.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Power, Sir John Cecli
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Purbrick, R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Pybus, Sir John
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Radford, E. A.
Stones, James


Mabane, William
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Strauss, Edward A.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sutcliffe, Harold


McKeag, William
Ray, Sir William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rea, Waiter Russell
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Maitland, Adam
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rickards, George William
Train, John


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Margesson, Capt Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Robinson, John Roland
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross, Ronald D.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Milne, Charles
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Watt. Captain George Steven H.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Weymouth, Viscount


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
White, Henry Graham


Moss, Captain H. J.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Munro, Patrick
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nunn, William
Selley, Harry R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Patrick, Colin M.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Peake, Osbert
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Pearson, William G.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Percy, Lord Eustace
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Perkins, Waiter R. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
George Penny.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Healy, Cahir
Paling, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Davies, Stephen Owen
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams. Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.



Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.

Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Proceedings, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon Table.

(1) Six Memoranda by the Secretary of State for India;
366
(2) Five Memoranda by Members of the Committee; and
(3) Records of Consultations on Irrigation and Forestry, reported from the Joint Committee.

Memoranda and Records to lie upon the Table.

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE).

4.8 p.m.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move,
That it is desirable that the publication of the Report and Minutes of Proceedings of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform and of such further Records as may be laid upon the Table by the Committee shall take place simultaneously in Great Britain and in India, and that copies printed by His Majesty's Stationery Office be published in India at the same time that they are published in this country.
The Joint Select Committee on India having finished their prolonged, and, I think I may justly say, arduous labours, the Report is presented to the House, and I have been directed by the Committee to make the Motion which stands in my name. I understand that the Committee requested the Lord Chairman to make a similar Motion in another place. I understand that unless this Motion be carried by the House, the moment that the Report of the Proceedings and Records are laid upon the Table, they will become available to any Member of the House. There would follow inevitably piecemeal publication, or publication of extracts and summaries in this matter, and India and Burma, which are immediately concerned, would be dependent upon such telegraphic reports as might reach them for a knowledge of what the Report of the Committee actually was. It was the unanimous opinion of the Joint Select Committee, which was not always unanimous, that it would be a great misfortune if the document were published first in this country, and if India and Burma were dependent on telegraphic summaries for their knowledge of it. Accordingly, the Committee directed me to make this Motion in order that publication may take place simultaneously here and in India and in Burma. I understand that if this Motion is carried, the Report will be available to Members of this House some time probably in the late afternoon of 21st November, and that it will be generally available in large numbers to the Press on the next morning. It will be simultaneously available in India and in Burma.
The Lord Chairman, on behalf of the Committee, put himself to considerable trouble to ascertain the earliest moment at which simultaneous publication could
be arranged. The House will, of course, remember that both in the case of the Report of the Statutory Commission, which was unofficially known as the Simon Commission, and in the case of the White Paper, such simultaneous publication was made, but they were not papers in the possession of Parliament, and no question of Privilege could be raised, and the Lord Chairman, having consulted the authorities of the two Houses, ascertained that if, in anticipation of the judgment of Parliament, he had allowed copies to leave this country, or took steps to secure simultaneous printing in India, he and any others who were responsible would have come within the Privilege of Parliament. As neither their Lordships wished to go to the Tower nor members of the House of Commons to the Clock Tower, we did not think it proper to take that risk.
That, I think, is all that it is necessary to say, except to add that, that being granted, the Lord Chairman, on behalf of the Committee, made inquiry to see whether it was possible to shorten the intervening period by the use of aeroplanes, but it appeared that that would not only involve a very considerable, and probably the House will think unjustifiable additional expense, but that, even so, very little time—I think only two or three days—would have been saved. Therefore, that course was not recommended. Those are the only reasons for which, under the direction of the Joint, Select Committee, I make this Motion to-day.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No one, I think, could possibly object to the principle of the Motion which my right hon. Friend has just submitted to the House. We quite understand that the Joint Select Committee, after their arduous labours, are most anxious that the people of India shall learn the blessings which are to be conferred upon them at the same time as the glad tidings are imparted to both Houses of Parliament in this country. Nevertheless, although the precedent may be quite satisfactory, the extra delay, although it may be we have no means of preventing it, is serious. There have been very long delays already. I am only going to pursue my argument on this matter along the theme of time and the consequences of delay. I am not
even going to dwell upon the inconveniences which undoubtedly will result if this Indian controversy in its graver aspects should be so prolonged as to tread upon the heels of a General Election. On the contrary, I shall confine myself to the immediate practical time-table which lies before us between now and Christmas.
There is to be, as I understand, publication on the 21st or 22nd; that is to be the date of the simultaneous publication. Then, before Christmas, we are to have a meeting of the Council of the National Union of Conservative Associations, in accordance with the promise which was made, and which was so scrupulously interpreted, by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. If such a meeting is to give full and careful attention to the matter, this very bulky report ought to be spread wide through the country at the earliest possible moment. There ought to be three weeks before such a meeting in order to do that, after the publication of the report, and I doubt very much whether it will be possible in the time-table to fit that in. There would certainly be a disadvantage if the study of the report is cut down to, say, only a fortnight. After the Council of the National Union of Conservative Associations has met, we are, I understand, to have a three-days' Debate in the House upon the general approval or disapproval of the report. It is quite clear, therefore, that we have no time to lose.
I think, also, that everyone would wish, and that the Government would wish, to terminate as quickly as possible this present very unsatisfactory state of affairs—this unsatisfactory phase where the Government have to go about assuring their supporters that they are committed to nothing, and all the time events are moving swiftly forward in the sense of committing them very much. Also, I think that Ministers know all about the report. It is quite obvious, from speeches delivered by the Attorney-General, that they are very well informed. I dare say my right hon. and learned Friend has been so busy defending liberty that he has not fully appreciated the natural deductions which could be drawn from his remarks, but certainly it appears that he knew what was in the report, and
was strongly advising people to have great confidence in it. Anyhow, I am only using this argument—which would very quickly lead me out of order if pursued it—on the point of time, to show how essential and important it is that the delay should be shortened to the smallest possible compass. Has it been shortened to the smallest possible compass? I am not making any assertion at all; I am simply asking for greater reassurance. My right hon. Friend suggests that everything has been done with the maximum of speed; he said that an aeroplane would be of no advantage, and so on. I am bound to say I should have thought that, if the report were signed, as it was signed, I believe, yesterday—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It was approved; it was not signed. The Report of a Select Committee of either House does not have signatures appended to it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, at any rate it was approved. If it was approved and received its final release from the Committee yesterday or to-day, it would have been possible for a duplicate attested copy to have been included in the aeroplane which leaves on Saturday, the day after to-morrow, and this would have saved at least the difference between the air and the sea journey. Then the report could have been reprinted in India in a few days—in no longer time than it takes to print it here—and could have beers circulated then, saving 10 days. That might be a great convenience when we were discussing this matter, as we shall' be discussing it, at the Union of Conservative Associations, and also generally-for the convenience of the House and of the public. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will tell us whether it was not possible to save that time, because undoubtedly we ought to have the fullest possible opportunity of considering a matter of this kind.
There is only one other point which I venture to make in this connection, and that is as to the manner in which the report synchronises or does not synchronise with the elections which are taking place in India. I am bound to say I should have thought that a report of this character ought to have been in the possession of the Indian democracy before they gave their votes at the election which has now, I believe, already almost begun. I should have thought that it would have
been entirely the wish of the Government to secure that course. My right hon. Friend will no doubt tell me that he has no power to control the working of the Joint Select Committee. I shall not argue that with him to-day, but at any rate he had perfect power, in consultation with the Viceroy, to arrange for such a minor postponement of the Indian elections that this very important document from their point of view would have been before them before the elections had begun, and when there was time for them to digest the whole matter. But, as far as I can gather, the way in which this thing is working out is that the bulk of the elections will be over before this report is made public in India. I gather that some of the most important Provinces will have voted before the report is made public. The United Provinces poll before the 20th November; the Central Provinces before the 20th November; Assam before the 14th November; the North-West Frontier Province—the key Province—before the 17th November. I should have thought that it was very inconvenient — most inconvenient — to throw this document, upon which so much interest centres, into the stormy field of Indian politics in the actual midst of the elections, and not to have arranged that at any rate all the facts were before the Indian electorate at the time when they were electing the Members for the new Legislature.
I am certainly not going to suggest that this mischance has been planned; but what would have happened if, when we were introducing the Irish Constitution, we had managed to let the actual facts of the agreement out in the middle of the election of the Dail; or, going further back, if, when we were planning the Transvaal Constitution, we had managed to bring that document out at the moment when the people of the Transvaal were already engaged in their poll. It would, I think, have been thought to be a rather unfortunate handling of the affair. I do not at all suggest that it is designed. If it were designed, it would be a bad design. But, if it has been unintentional, all I can say is that it falls very much below the standard of management in technical and tactical matters that we have been accustomed to look for in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I rise merely to express our agreement on this side with the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I am afraid that it would be beyond my province to go into the question of the effect of the meeting of what I think is called the C.N.U., and which seems to have become analogous to the T.U.C. The present Government have to refer to some outside authority before they can act. I will leave that entirely aside. I will also leave the technical question of whether as a matter of fact one could have done anything by the use of the Air Service to the Secretary of State for India, who has had a very long experience in the air, and doubtless knows all these details. I would only say that, as one who took part in the long sittings in the Joint Select Committee, I am sure everyone on the Committee wanted to make greater haste, and, if I may, I would express our satisfaction that we are at the end of our labours. I hope this discussion will not be unduly prolonged, because it seems almost like the addition of just a little footnote to a rather long volume of work.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I desire to associate myself and my hon. Friends with the request which is now being made. The course proposed is the proper course. Publication of this document here some time before it was published in India would arouse natural and proper resentment, and the problems with which we have to deal are problems which need as far as possible the elimination of all resentment. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is so impatient for the publication of the report. I should have thought, looking at his public declarations, that he would have been very much pleased if it had been delayed for a period, not merely of a couple of weeks, but a couple of years, or even a couple of centuries. We hope that he will restrain his impatience, and that, when the document is published on the 22nd of this month, it may command a larger measure of approval than his recent speeches have led us to expect.

4.28 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: As a member of the Joint Select Committee, I would like to say a few words in support of the Motion. I agree with my colleagues that it is desirable that the report should be issued and published simultaneously in both countries. The delay that has occurred is not great compared with the time which has necessarily been taken by the Joint Select Committee, and I do not think that any member of the Committee had in his mind any idea of making the date convenient for the elections in India. I am not going into other matters, but I certainly hope that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) suggests, after the publication of the report ample time will be given for its discussion both before and outside this House. I know it is often said that it has taken a long time from start to finish before the new Constitution has been reached, but, after all, it is a very formidable task in which we have been engaged, and we are not always so prompt even with our own affairs in this country. I think that on the whole the new Constitution for India would win the race as compared with the time taken over Waterloo Bridge.

4.30 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The four speeches to which we have listened, I think, will convince the House that this Resolution does not show the hidden hand of an unscrupulous Government. It is rather a Resolution at the invitation of a unanimous Committee composed of all sections of opinion both in this House and in another place. Indeed, as I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I could not discover that he disputed the conclusion at which the Committee arrived, namely, that simultaneous publication is in the circumstances inevitable. That being so, he will pardon me for saying that I could not understand why he made the speech to which we have just listened. It seemed to me that there could be little other motive in his mind except generally to create an atmosphere of suspicion about the actions of the Committee and the motives which led them to their action.
Let me at once dissipate the suspicions from the mind of any hon. Member in the
House wherever he may be sitting. First of all, so far as precedent is concerned, this action is strictly in accordance with the former practice of both Houses. Secondly, I should have thought that any sensible or reasonable Member of either House would have objected strongly to the Report coming out one day here and then coming out in garbled editions day by day and week by week in India. I should have thought further—here I am in some conflict with my right hon. Friend—that there was no one in the House, much less in the Government, and least of all myself, who is anxious to see any further delay. We are all convinced, most of all the Secretary of State for India, that this very unsatisfactory period in which the hands of Members of the Government are tied and the hands of other people are not always so closely tied had better come to an end as quickly as possible. I therefore should have been delighted if we could have brought the long proceedings to a termination far earlier than the date that we have in mind.
There have been delays. A good deal of the delay in the Committee was due to the inquiry of the Committee of Privileges last summer, and even now it takes some time to make the mechanical arrangements for simultaneous publication in India and in this country without breaking in actual fact Parliamentary privilege. I was astonished, remembering that my right hon. Friend is the guardian of the privileges of the House, at his suggestion that we could send out a copy from here by air and that it could then be printed in India. I will inform him that we inquired of the experts in Parliamentary procedure both in this House and in another place, and they were unanimous in saying that that would have undoubtedly been a great breach of Parliamentary privilege.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that the House would not now authorise such a proceeding?

Sir S. HOARE: This, surely, is the simple course, to take no risk lest a document of this kind should be disclosed in any shape or form until it is published both here and in India. I deprecate the suggestion he made that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General was already in possession of contents of the report. He seemed to
suggest that he had seen it. Nothing of the kind. My right hon. Friend sitting next me has just confirmed that he knows no more of the contents of the report than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. That being so, I deprecate these suspicions and innuendos about the work of the Committee. Let the House rest assured that we all of us wish to see this report published here and in India at the earliest possible date, and in our view, and in the view of the Committee, 21st and 22nd November are the earliest dates at which there can be simultaneous publication here, in India and in Burma.
The question of the dates of the Indian elections never entered into the mind of any member of the Joint Select Committee. No one could have said last summer when the Joint Select Committee was going to make its report. It was, however, necessary as early as last May to settle when the elections should take place, and without breaking any confidence I can tell my right hon. Friend that the Viceroy and I agreed to the elections being held at or about this time as long ago as the early part of last summer, at a time when no one had the least idea when the Joint Select Committee was going to report. I claim that that completely disposes of any suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that there was some collusion between me and the Viceroy to avoid what he was pleased to call the democracy of India—a new phrase, or shall I say, rather a phrase that came out of an earlier chapter of my right hon. Friend's political career. Be that as it may, let the House take it from me that, so far from there being any collusion between the Government of India and myself as to when these elections should be held, they were fixed last summer at a time when no one knew when the Joint Select Committee was
going to make its report. I think all these suspicions might have been avoided, and J think my right hon. Friend himself might have thought it unnecessary to make the speech he has just made if he had accepted the invitation that the Government and I pressed upon him now 20 months ago that he should be a member of this Committee. If he had been a member he would have known that there was not the least foundation for any of
the suggestions and suspicions to which he has just given expression.

4.39 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I think some Members, at any rate, did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It occurred to me, and I believe to other Members, that my right hon. Friend rose for the purpose, if possible, of securing that this publication should be speeded up in India. That is a very proper suggestion. Everyone who has been reading the Indian Press for the last year knows that this question is one that has been mentioned in every newspaper in India. Whether the Report is going to be published before the Election or after has been common discussion throughout the whole of the Press. Although everyone will recognise the fact that immense difficulties have occurred and that the Select Committee, undoubtedly most wisely, have decided to do everything in their power to arrange for simultaneous publication in this country and in India —it is the obvious thing to attempt to do—at the same time I must assert, what I believe is correct in principle, that, in fact, Parliament alone can decide these questions, and it is only a matter of courtesy and convenience and wisdom to give simultaneous publication in India, and I think it really meets the
point that he has raised. I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think there would have been any impropriety in this document being printed in India had it been thought wise so to do.
I must say, although we are assured that it could not be helped, it is really a deplorable fact that this momentous decision will be announced after practically all the Parliaments are elected except two or three. It would have been undoubtedly a very much happier outcome of this long protracted inquiry if the people of India had known before the elections took place the broad principles that were embodied in this great document. I can only ask hon. Members to consider for a moment what would happen if an election were taking place in this country and the whole question of the Constitution was in the melting pot,
and they only saw the results perhaps two or three days after the elections had taken place.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: It seems to me most extraordinary that many Members seem to be under the impression that there is an exact comparison between India and England. They are talking about India as though it were a country that had the right to control its own affairs. We are only giving them a temporary opportunity of expressing their opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) comes forward now as the champion of the rights of the people of India to know exactly where they are going to be. We remember the days when he was the champion of the people of England not knowing where they were going to get. Some of us believe in democracy in India as well as in England. I do not pretend to be the leader of any party, but, if democracy is a good thing for the workers of Great Britain—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Motion.

Mr. JONES: I hope the time may arrive when the people of our Dominions—

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Resolved,
That it is desirable that the publication of the Report and Minutes of Proceedings of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform and of such further Records as may be laid upon the Table by the Committee shall take place simultaneously in Great Britain and in India, and that copies printed by His Majesty's Stationery Office be published in India at the same time that they are published in this country.

BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords].

4.44 p.m.


            The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John
            Gilmour)
          : I beg to move,
That the Order 127th June] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee be read and discharged except so far as Clause 1 is concerned; that the Bill (except Clause 1) be committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and that, when the provisions of the Bill considered respectively by the Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported
to the House, the Report stage of the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill bad been reported as a whole to the House from a Committee of the Whole House.
It is unnecessary for me to make anything in the nature of a Second Reading speech on a problem of this kind. The circumstances are well within the recollection of the House. It was because of certain factors which had arisen in connection with dog-racing tracks, lotteries and other matters that the Government felt it necessary to appoint a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission, having considered and received evidence at considerable length on all of these problems, made their report. It was then the task of the Government to consider these very difficult and admittedly controversial subjects. This was carefully done, and the Bill which is now the matter of discussion was introduced in another place on 27th March, 1934. It had full Debate. All the subjects were discussed and very full expressions were given to different points of view. It is worthy of notice that in the other place there was no Division taken either upon the Second or the Third Reading of the Bill, and the Bill eventually left the House of Lords without any very material alteration except on details.
The Bill was then introduced into this House, and I would again draw the attention of the House to the fact that it received a Second Reading without a Division. Am I not entitled at least to claim this much; that the general view of the House as a whole was in favour of the principle upon which this Bill was based? lion Members had not only had the opportunity of following the Debates in another place, but they had had the opportunity of a Second Reading Debate on the Floor of this House, and so satisfied was the House with the fact that the Bill was following the right principles in dealing with these subjects, taking quite admittedly a middle course in most of these problems between the acute view of either the pros or antis, that it was accepted by this House on Second Reading.
The fact remains that it was then sent to a Committee upstairs. That Committee sat seven days, including two days in which morning and afternoon meetings were held. The Government did not put on great pressure or use the closure un-duly. They gave the greatest freedom
for discussion. The result of that is known to everyone who has followed this matter throughout. The House rose to begin the Summer Recess. At that time the Committee had dealt with Clause 1 of the Bill, and it therefore remained for the Government and the House to come to a decision as to what they chose to do. In so far as the Government are concerned, I think I have made it abundantly clear in the discussion upstairs. This is a Measure which is designed to deal with more than one aspect of these problems. The Government decided that they must deal with these as a whole, and that they are not going to deal with one particular section and not the other. That being so, the Government position is that they had to make up their minds, owing to the circumstances of the time, of Which the House is well aware—that this House is going to rise very shortly and that there is a limited time—as to whether they were to drop the Bill or proceed with it. The Government decided that they should proceed with the Bill, and the only practical method by which that can be done, in view of the time, is that the House should be asked to bring some parts of the Bill not dealt with by the Committee upstairs on to the Floor of the House. Therefore, the matter lies in the hands of this House, and it is for the Members to say whether they accept this method of dealing with the Bill. It does not seem to me that it is an undue privilege to ask this House to settle this matter for itself.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask a question? I presume, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is asking the House to make a very considerable innovation, he will give us some precedents for the action. I presume before he sits down he will tell us if there is any precedent for the course the Government are taking.

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I would say on this matter is that, of course, the general custom of this House in our rules and regulations has been, as far as possible, to make them flexible to meet the practical circumstances of the times. If the right hon. Member desires me to deal with the question of precedent, I would remind him that, while it may be quite rue that in all detail there may not be exact precedents, there are precedents
for the proposal which we are now making to the House. The most recent is that of the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Bill brought forward in the early part of the Session by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson). That Bill was originally sent upstairs and then brought back to the Floor of this House. I have said that it is not an exact precedent. Then there was a National Insurance Bill, originally committed to a Committee of the whole House. After it had been considered for 14 days a time table motion was passed to transfer certain later parts of the Bill, which had not been reached, to a Standing Committee. That is merely the reverse process. The fact remains that the only solution is for the House to decide to proceed with the Bill by bringing it back on to the Floor of the House, or the Bill goes. That is the issue.
This is not the time or place to enter into the details of the Measure itself. I am very conscious of the fact that there are great differences of opinion on matters of detail. There may be some even who hold differences of opinion upon the whole method of dealing with this matter, but, if that be so, why did they not express themselves when the House gave the Bill a Second Reading without a Division? Therefore, I put the case to the House. It is for the House to decide, and, as far as the Government are concerned, they think that not only this House but the interests of the country desire that the House shall proceed to consider this Measure; and, in these circumstances, I beg to move.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I shall not say one word about the merits of the Bill itself. I rise to make a protest on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself as to the way the Government handle their business. We shall carry our protest into the Division Lobby against this Motion for reasons which I will try to make clear in the course of what I have to say. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this Bill went before another place as long ago as 27th March. It appeared on the Floor of this House on the 27th June for its Second Reading. It is perfectly true that it got its Second Reading without a Division, but, f the right hon. Gentleman is trying to delude hon. Members that the House loved the Bill he knows perfectly well that the
House does not believe it for one moment. He knows the House gave the Bill a Second Reading because of the difficulties of the problem that was raised and because the Bill was to go to a Standing Committee upstairs. After the 27th June the Bill went to a Standing Committee. It had, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, seven meetings before the House rose for the Recess at the end of July. At the end of that time it had reached the end of Clause 1.
Now we are faced with a. new proposal. When the right hon. Gentleman is asked for precedents he gives precedents the other way round. That is a new kind of procedure. We are now faced with a proposal that this Bill, after its stormy passage through seven days, having only reached the end of Clause 1, should be brought back to the Floor of the House. The Government knew perfectly well, although they did get a Second Reading without a Vote being challenged on the 27th June, that this Bill was a gamble. They knew that it was a highly controversial Bill. We all know that it is. We all know that there are conflicting interests who have made their voices heard on this Bill. I am saying nothing about them. 1 am merely emphasising the fact that the Bill was obviously a Bill of the most controversial kind. I am not an old Parliamentarian, but I venture to say to old Parliamentarians in the House that no Government ever brought a Bill of a controversial nature into this House for Second Reading towards the end of June and expected it to get through that Session.
The Bill was controversial. The right hon. Gentleman knew the baby was dead when he brought it and deposited it on the Floor of this House on 27th June, and this artificial respiration is not a compliment to the House. Seven days upstairs, one Clause; here we are on 1st November, with a mere fortnight to run before the end of the Session, and the Government calmly tell us they are going to bring the Bill back from the Committee down to the Floor of the House. Knowing the situation, knowing that the Bill was controversial—as they must have done—knowing that they had not had sufficient discussion, as events have shown, with the various interests prior to the introduction of the Bill, knowing the late time of the Session when the
Bill came to this House, they ought themselves to have taken steps to deal with the procedure by which they meant to get the Bill on to the Statute Book.
We have had now on the Order Paper, I am told since the last day before the Recess at the end of July, a Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, a Motion which the Government put down of their own initiative as being an improvement in our methods of Parliamentary procedure. This Motion—which, at great expense to the country, is printed day by day and will go on being printed until the Government either make provision for carrying the Motion or take it off the Order Paper—is one which, had it been in operation now, would have obviated the situation in which the Government find themselves. The Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister with regard to the Standing Orders will give the Chairmen of Standing Committees power to select Amendments. We on these benches regard that as a reasonable power that the Chairmen of Standing Committees ought to enjoy. The Government must have thought about that before this Bill was introduced. They must have known about it before the fateful day for the right hon. Gentleman, the 27th June. They did nothing. Knowing what the Bill was, even if they did not want to establish the general principle that a chairman of a Standing Committee should have the right to select Amendments, a right which is enjoyed by the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House, they might have armed the Chairman of that particular Committee with powers of that kind when the Bill went upstairs. Had they done so the seven days in Committee would not have been spent on one Clause The Committee might have made some progress.
The right hon. Gentleman tells us that there are precedents, but the precedents that he quotes are precedents the other way. He quotes two precedents. One was the Workmen's Compensation Bill of this year. I speak without having bad an opportunity of looking into the question but my recollection is that that Bill did not come downstairs after it had had an abortive time in Committee. Therefore, that precedent goes. What was the other precedent? He referred to the National Insurance Act of 1911. That
Bill started on the Floor of this House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) remembers more about that Bill than I do, because I was not a Member of the House at that time. Part I of the Bill passed its Committee stage on the Floor of the House, but Part II was sent upstairs to Standing Committee. That was not a case of a Bill going to Standing Committee and then coming back. It was a case of a Bill being taken on the Floor of the House and for reasons best known to the Government at the time it was decided that Part II should go upstairs. At that time the Standing Orders were different from those which operate to-day. There was no Kangaroo Closure. The kangaroo being an Australian animal was unknown in this country. It was a post-war importation into this country, at least in Parliamentary circles.
On that occasion in 1911 when Part II of the Bill went upstairs it did so with the Chairman of the Standing Committee vested with the same power as the Chairman of Ways and Means, or Mr. Speaker in the case of a Report stage, to select Amendments. That is not the only precedent the other way. In the case of the Railways Act of 1921, in the Debate on which the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) spoke, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir Austen Chamberlain) came forward with a proposal affecting a Bill in Committee on the Floor of this House that Part II of the Bill should go upstairs and that the Chairman of the Standing Committee should have the right to select Amendments and full powers as regards the conduct of the Committee which now rests with Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Major HILLS: The Bill went upstairs but time was short, and therefore it was divided and Part I was left with the original Committee, and Part II was sent to a separate Standing Committee.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg pardon. I may be wrong in the details. But we are clear that a special Standing Committee was appointed to deal with Part II of the Bill and that the Chairman of that Committee was given powers to select Amendments. That is the substance of my case. In 1930, almost exactly four years ago, the present Prime Minister, then Prime
Minister of a Government which has been deceased for three years, came to this House and moved a Motion in regard to the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, and at that time, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister then had only a minority behind him instead of the large and important majority that he has behind him to-day, he succeeded in carrying the Motion, that the Bill in Standing Committee should be dealt with as regards the right of the Chairman to select Amendments as if it had been dealt with on the Floor of the House.
With these precedents in front of us, we say that what, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have done in regard to the present Bill, knowing the character of the Bill, knowing its difficulties, was to have asked the House at the very beginning to give the Chairman of the Standing Committee the right to select Amendments. I do not want undue discussion of Bills. In this Parliament our party has never been guilty of pure obstruction. It does not want the Government to be rendered impotent by the mere dreary drip of talk. It wants to make things effective. If the right hon. Gentleman after the Second Reading of the Bill had taken such a course he would have got from this House power to the Chairman of the Standing Committee to use his discretion in the selection of Amendments. He did not choose to do so. Instead, we find that in November, with only a fortnight of this Session to run, he comes to the House and says: "Here is my Bill which went to a Committee upstairs. I cannot get it through there. Let me bring it down to the Floor of the House, where there can be a discretion as regards the choice of Amendments, where we can suspend the 11 o'clock rule, and where we can steamroller the Bill through the House." That is an insult to the House of Commons.
I am not arguing about the merits of the Bill. I am dealing with the way the Government have handled the Bill and are handling it in such a way now that next week three whole days and nights will be devoted to it. This is not a party question. Next week, three days and nights are to be given to the Committee stage of the Bill at a time when the minds of the majority of people in the House are exercised more by the plight of the unemployed than they are about this Bill. Those three days next week
ought to be valuable time. The Prime Minister told us two days ago that he was going to publish the reports of the Commissioners for the distressed areas, and that we were to have a debate on them. What better subject could there be for three days next week than that? We shall probably be fobbed off with a Friday, or perhaps half a day, or if the Government are generous a whole day in the middle of the week for discussion of a vital national problem which is symptomatic of the economic ills from which the country is suffering to-day, and yet next week three days and perhaps far into the night we shall be discussing the Betting and Lotteries Bill.
These are the things which my hon. Friends wished me to put to the House, not as to the Bill itself but as to the way in which it has been handled. We express our strongest protest against this innovation in Parliamentary procedure. There is no parallel for anything the Government are doing now. There are parallels for the course which I suggest the Government ought to have taken. In view of the pressing nature of other great national problems, in view of the fact that we have the problem of the distressed areas with us now and that we have a very short time available before the Session ends, I suggest to the Government that the decent and courteous thing to do is to take the Bill back to Standing Committee to be dealt with by people who are interested in the Bill, to give the Chairman of the Committee reasonable powers of discretion for the selection of Amendments, and to let the Bill, like all other Bills of the kind, go through the ordinary process of Parliamentary procedure. My lion. Friends and I will go into the Lobby against this Motion, whatever our views may be about the substance of the Bill, and we do it as an indictment of the competence of the Government in handling the Measure.

l.12 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I know that there are many hon. Members who are anxious to speak on this matter. I have been asked by my hon. Friends, who are conferring on another subject in another part of the House, to express their views on the subject. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading it was carried, as we have been re-
minded, without any Division being challenged. Later, when it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill should go upstairs to Standing Committee, although we did not carry our objection to that course into the Division Lobby, I think we told him our objection to it and that we believed the Bill would be endangered. I was disappointed that a Bill which deals, whatever may be said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) with a matter of vital concern, a Bill which had apparently received the support of another place and which had received the support in general terms of this House, insofar as it was represented by an unchallenged Second Reading, should have gone where there was not the same machinery for carrying it through within a limited time.
I do not want to be taken away this afternoon into a Debate on the merits of the Bill. I said what I had to say on the Second Reading. I said that there were many parts of the Bill about which I was apprehensive but that I thought it did carry out the report of the commission which had been set up to consider the subject. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Wakefield in the suggestion that we have to devote the time of this House to the discussion of economic questions. They certainly have a primary claim upon our time, but I dissociate myself utterly from the suggestion that the House of Commons is wasting its time if it concerns itself with a question which touches every town, city and village in the country. If it is to be suggested, and I think it must be for the first time from the benches above the Gangway, that a matter upon which such a grave report was presented after an inquiry set up, if I mistake not, by the previous Government, should be set aside, together with their urgent recommendations as being of no importance, it is a suggestion with which we cannot associate ourselves. We shall be wise, therefore, if we confine ourselves strictly to the merits of the course which is proposed.
The Bill went upstairs against the wishes of many of us, and if we had tackled the proposal there and then, I think it could have been carried through whilst it was fresh in our minds and whilst the public were thinking about it.
We could have dealt with it in three or four days. But here we are now with the Bill, and it is clear that if some course such as this is not taken the Bill is dead for the present Session. We cannot very well alter the procedure of the Committee, and, in fact, that would mean more discussion. If we attach importance to the Bill this is the only way in which it can be saved. I am jealous of the privileges of the House but, after all, the House of Commons is the master of its own concerns. The regulations exist for our service, we are not the slaves of our own regulations. This is not merely a Government matter. There are many cleavages of opinion in regard to the Bill, and I think we shall see some extraordinary results in the Division Lobby.
This is the one Bill which cannot be said to be a party Measure. It may be that those who are opposing the proposal of the Government will be those who have opposed the Bill upstairs and will oppose it next week on the Floor of the House. In these matters we have not to be the slaves of our own privileges, they exist in order to enable us to carry through our business, And whilst I should [be opposed to the Government over-riding a minority in the House I think that, where there is general opinion in favour of a social reform, for which the country will be better, a reform upon lines recommended by a responsible Commission, the Government in my view have taken the right course and are entitled to look for the support of those who approved the Bill on Second Reading. We shall not be sacrificing any Parliamentary privilege. We shall be giving to the House of Commons next week an opportunity of declaring its mind on the Bill, and if there is a majority opposed to the Bill, who think it does harm rather than good, the power is in the hands of the House of Commons, because I gather that there will be a fairly free vote whatever may be the pressure brought by the Whips.

Earl WINTERTON: We are having a free vote to-day; the right hon. Gentleman has told us so.

Mr. FOOT: I missed the phrase and therefore am not quite sure what interpretation is to be placed upon it. This is the one Bill of the Session which less
than any other is a party Measure; it is marked by considerable division of opinion which does not run on ordinary party lines. If we think that the Commission did the right thing in making urgent representation and that the Government are right to have had regard to that representation, then it is quite right for the House of Commons to take such steps as may be necessary to carry through a reform which touches so closely the lives of our people at so many points.

5.20 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I want to back up all that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has said. The Socialist opposition is really trying to kill the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS:
"No."] That is what it looks like to me; it is very suspicious, and if that be the case they are running a great risk. The Bill is backed by all people who are interested in the social conditions of the country. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) accused the Government of incompetence and asked them to behave decently and courageously. I am not going to say anything about the right hon. Gentleman and incompetence except this, that if ever there was an incompetent Minister it was the right hon. Member for Wakefield. He came to the House fresh from a by-election and has tried to make a by-election speech this afternoon. This is no party question. It is a matter of really deep concern to the people of this country, certainly among the women of the country. If I have any complaint to make against the Government it is that as soon as they received the report of the Commission they should have acted upon it. The Bill is long overdue. They have let interested persons, what the Labour people call vested interests, get to work and form an opposition against the Bill. That is the only complaint I have against the Government.
In Committee some hon. Members talked and talked over the same question time and time again. There are some hon. Members who do not want the Bill to get through, and they wasted time in Committee. The only chance of getting the Bill is to bring it on to the Floor of the House. I think it is a pity that the Socialist Opposition should think fit to vote against the proposals because they know that they are voting to kill the
Bill. I cannot believe that all Members of the Opposition will do that. I hope they will show what the right hon. Member for Wakefield calls dencency and courage and back the Government. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) did his best to kill the Bill upstairs. He was one of the people who talked for hours and hours while we showed great patience in listening to long speeches during the hot weather. I hope that the Government will bring the Bill on to the Floor of the House when I am quite certain that the House will not show the same patience we did in Committee. Many of the speeches would not last for five minutes on the Floor of the House, but we had to bear them in silence last July. The right hon. Member for Wakefield should not take this opportunity of trying to defeat the Government. A few by-elections seem to have gone to his head, and hope those Members of his party who are deeply interested in the Bill and in social reform will not take part in a snap division against the Government with a few diehards on the other side who want to kill the Bill. With regard to precedents, rules and regulations are for our convenience, not to stop our business. Hon. Members who make sham speeches about precedents are doing far more harm to the House of Commons than anyone. I hope all those who really believe in the Bill will not be led astray by the right hon. Member for Wakefield, backed by a few old diehards on the other side of the House.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I have no intention whatever of raising matters of controversy with regard to the Bill but I must certainly register an objection, which every hon. Member is entitled to raise, with regard to the procedure. I have listened to the silent Noble Lady who has intervened in the Debate and would like to call her attention to the fact that according to the Rules of the House if objection is raised to a Motion of this kind Mr. Speaker decides as to its regularity. I am aware of the fact that the House of Commons is the supreme authority, but I am also aware of the delegation by that authority to a body to deal with matters of importance, and by the determination of this House a body competent or incompetent was set up to deal with a certain Measure. That
was within the Rules of Procedure of the House of Commons. We proceeded to deal with the merits or demerits of the Bill. While the House of Commons has a right to decide that a Measure shall be brought on to the Floor of the House I contend that in regard to this Measure you are creating a precedent. I am not able to find in the records of the House of Commons anything like a case of allowing a Minister to come forward and, because he has not been able to get a Bill through in time to suit his convenience, say that lie is going to force it through on the Floor of the House. It is most irregular. No Parliamentarian, and I know a few, is able to give me any precedent for a Minister who has got the Second Reading of a Bill which has been sent to a Committee to say that a reservation must be made in regard to a particular Clause in the Bill.
If the House of Commons is going to stand by this proposal it will be laying itself open to many abuses. At any moment Members of the House can be called together and a Committee can be set up. It may be a packed jury. If the Minister is to get a decision by a packed jury are we to take it that he is going to have the power to come to the House of Commons and say that as this jury are not going to give decisions in conformity with my wishes therefore there must be reservations in regard to a particular Clause. I contend that so far as Parliamentary procedure is concerned it is most irregular and open to great abuse. I shall also contend that it is an insult to the Standing Committee and to the House of Commons. It is insulting to the Committee because certain deliberations did take place and there was a tacit agreement with the Minister that if certain things developed by arrangement something else might follow. The Minister made such an arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman is here and can contradict me if he sees fit to do so. I could read the quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT if necessary. If the Committee did not deal with the Bill as the Minister required them to do he has no right to make a reservation, in this Motion, of the particular Clause of the Bill that was dealt with by the Committee.
I shall ask the Chair to give a Ruling. I know beforehand, by the courtesy of the Chair, what the Ruling will be. In
spite of that I would point out the danger of our constitutional rights being filched. It is not a question of opportunism but a question of carrying out a constitutional understanding. From the point of view of expediency it is not expedient to rush any matter through the House of Commons when on things of vital importance it has not received the fullest criticism and discussion. I am dealing only with the constitutional point and not with the merits of the Bill. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule that the procedure is irregular, that it is unprecedented, that as far as the customs of this House are concerned it is not the ordinary procedure of Parliament and that it ought to be ruled out entirely.


            Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain
            Bourne)
          : I gather that the hon. Member is putting to me a point of order. In reply, I am not aware of any question of precedent for the present proposal. At the same time, as the hon. Member is aware, this House has complete control over its own procedure. If it seems good to the House to pass a Resolution such as is on the Paper, obviously both he and I and the rest of the Members of the House must bow to the decision.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Apart
from the question of precedent, which may or may not be important, it seems to me that the only valid ground for objecting to the course which the Government propose to take is the fear that if the Measure is brought to the Floor of the House it may not receive the same attention as it would receive upstairs in Committee. If that means a smaller number of lengthy speeches than we were accustomed to in the Committee, it may not be altogether a bad thing; but if it means that the Measure will not be properly debated and will not be considered on its merits, that is quite a different matter. That is what I am afraid of. We all know what it means when the Government Whips are put on. It means that supporters of the Government will vote against Amendments, not on the intrinsic merits of the question but purely on the wider ground of their loyalty to the Government that they were returned to support.
There is no more loyal supporter of the Government than I am, and no one who is more reluctant to damage its prestige, but I believe that the prestige of the Government depends on doing what the country wants. There are very definite Amendments to the Bill that the country does want to see carried. I shall not attempt to go into the details now. I cannot prove what the country wants, but one is entitled to say that certain resolutions that have been carried in conferences throughout the country would lead one to suppose that amendment of the Bill was wanted, and I believe it would be a safe bet that a resolution could be carried in favour of an occasional sweepstake at almost any public meeting in the country. Be that as it may, the only thing I ask is that the Government should try to hear the voice of the country on this matter. I think the best way to do that is to leave it to a free vote of the House. It is all very well to say that Members should have the courage to vote according to their convictions, and perhaps there may be some of us who will vote against the party Whips. I might myself. But I say quite frankly that if I thought that by doing so I would turn out the Government I certainly should not vote against them. Obviously for a paltry Measure like a Betting Bill one would not be justified in shortening the life of a Government which has done so much to restore prosperity and reduce unemployment. But I do not see why those wider grounds should be brought into the question at all.
This Bill is not the embodiment of any national principles. The Government was not returned pledged to introduce this Measure. I see no reason why the Government should think that they might lose face by accepting Amendments moved by their own supporters in order to improve the Bill. So far as I can see it is entirely a non-party issue. I think the spokesman of the Socialist party agreed with that, and also the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). Surely the Bill ought to be dealt with purely on its merits, and the duty of the Government ought to be to do what the country wants. If the Committee stage is left to a free vote of the House the details will be decided on their merits and the voice of the country will be heard, but if the Whips are kept on it will mean that
matters will be decided by party loyalty, that the merits of the case will be brushed aside and the voice of the country will be forgotten. It is because I am desperately anxious that the Government should carry out the wishes of the country that I ask them to consider leaving the Bill to a free vote and thereby give themselves a chance of carrying the country with them.

5.40 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: I intervene for only a few moments, and I need say less because the hon. Member who has just spoken has talked on a theme upon which I wanted to speak. A great deal depends on what the Government mean to do about the Bill if they get it on the Floor of the House. This is an unprecedented Motion. The Government are bringing the Bill here because they want to get it through. The Home Secretary said something about the House deciding. That was rather an enigmatical saying. Does it mean that the House is to have a free vote? That question should be cleared up definitely.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the question is that the Government Whips will be on.

Colonel GRETTON: Then we have a quite definite answer. The Government intend to bring the Bill to the Floor of the House in order that they may push it through. The Bill has not been making progress, but the Government are determined to have it and want to have it down here. It is a particularly unfortunate Bill to cram through the House at a very late date in an expiring Session. It is a Bill which excites considerable feeling on moral issues in some quarters, and undoubtedly it interferes with the social habits of the people, their recreation and relaxation. It is a social Bill, and one of those Measures to which party pressure should not be applied if it can possibly be avoided. I look upon it as very unfortunate that a Bill of this kind should be pushed through this House in Committee. I confess that like many other hon. Members I did not vote against the Second Reading. For private reasons, I did not even take part in the Debate. In a Standing Committee Amendments are freely discussed; the procedure is less rigid, the private Member has a better opportunity and the Government are sometimes more willing
to accept Amendments. I view with great alarm this procedure of the Government. I know definitely the feeling excited in some quarters by certain provisions of the Bill. I trust that the Government for their own sake will not persist in the course which is indicated, and if the opposition to this Motion is carried to a Division, I shall be compelled to vote against it.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I do not pretend to be an expert in Parliamentary procedure, but I ask those who are responsible for the procedure proposed here where they got their authority? This issue has not been raised at any election in which I have taken a part during the 16 years I have been a Member of the House. No one said that he would introduce a Bill of this character. When we were talking upon the Disaffection Bill I heard an hon. Member say that he was quite in favour of search in the case of people who were carrying on certain activities. What are the Government's intentions I We are told that the Whips will be put on. What is that to be done for? To put the Whips on is to intimidate the loyal Members of the Tory party to vote for the Bill whether they like it or not. Otherwise, they will be in danger of losing their seats at the next election.
I am not going to argue the merits of the Bill. In my view it has none. What I am going to argue is that you have no right to alter all the rules and procedure of Parliament in regard to a matter of this kind. As I understand it, when a Bill gets its Second Reading in the House, it is usually sent to a Committee and is amended if necessary and then comes back to the House for further consideration. The whole procedure is being altered in this case. The first Clause of this Bill was considered in Committee. Is it going to be considered afresh? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There you are then. The Bill is not going to be recommitted. What is the precedent for that? One of the most important Clauses, if not the main Clause of the Bill, has already been considered and we are now told that the Bill is not to he recommitted in respect of that Clause. As I say I am not an expert, in procedure like the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) but I know that if a Bill has gone through its Committee stage and if the Govern-
ment are not satisfied with what has happened, they can recommit it. I have never heard of a Bill being recommitted leaving out the main Clause, and that is what is being done in this case. Yet people who profess to be great constitutionalists, who go up and down the country preaching democracy, are going to support a proposal of that kind.
The Bill is a bad Bill as everybody knows, and if a free vote were allowed many of those who now pretend to support it would not be found in the Division Lobby in favour of it. I stand for the right of the working man to have a shilling on a horse if he wishes. I have heard of some of my friends acting on behalf of people who gamble in another way. It is all right gambling with stocks and shares but it is all wrong to put a "bob" on a horse in the opinion of certain people. I stand up, however, for the right of the worker to spend his shilling in his own way without any interference either from pussyfoots or any other kind of people who want to interfere with him. But this procedure and this interference with ordinary Parliamentary practice gives us an indication of what we can do in our turn when we get the power. We, too, may be able to do this kind of thing, and I hope you will like it when we do it.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: When the right hon. Gentleman was giving his reasons for this decision and asking the House to assent to it, he said that no objections were raised to the Second Reading of the Bill, and he argued that that proved conclusively that the House desired to support the principles upon which the Bill is founded. I agree that in substance his statement is true, but the right hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, might have gone a little further. He might have given us the reasons why the House did not wish to challenge the Second Reading of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced in another place guarantees and assurances were given that under no consideration would the Bill be forced in any way without the closest possible scrutiny and consideration of all criticisms, from whatever quarter they came I suggest that had those of us who are opposed to certain phraseology or legal parlance in this Bill known that we were not to be
allowed to criticise the Bill freely in Standing Committee, whether constructively or destructively, we would not only have opposed the Second Reading but would have been firm in our opposition to the Bill as a whole throughout all its stages.
I am going to take a different line from that which has been taken by other hon. Members. I am going to oppose the proposal that the Bill should be brought back to the Floor of the House because of the Bill itself. I am going to oppose it further because I believe that if the Bill is brought back to the Floor of the House, it will give the opponents of the National Government a great political weapon as far as the future constitutional affairs of this country are concerned. The hon. Member who has last spoken very plainly and frankly admitted that that was how he regarded the proposal. It will give those opponents power to do in regard to much wider and more important Measures than this things which at present are not possible under the constitutional procedure of Parliament. The Bill is to be brought back from the Standing Committee because, the right, hon. Gentleman says, he wants to get it before the end of this Parliament. He did not tell the House on the Second Reading that he wanted to get the Bill before the end of this Parliament, although there was the obvious conclusion that that was his object. But what he told the Standing Committee from the first moment it sat was this: "'I not only want the Bill before this Parliament ends, but I am going to have it by hook or by crook. You will have to take it or leave it and do what I suggest or the Bill will be taken out of your consideration and brought back to the Floor of the House."
As an hon. Member opposite has suggested the Bill is now to be pushed through not by the force of intelligent voting but by the force of the loyalty of the majority of Members to the Government. I suggest that that is a bad and an unfair precedent to set. As I suggested in a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, the Government have no mandate for the Bill. They have never even yet submitted to the country any considerations in regard to the Bill, and I submit that they have no right to take up valuable time in the House of
Commons in discussing the contentious Clauses of this Measure when it could be much more effectively dealt with upstairs. I submit that the Bill is of such a nature that it ought to be dealt with upstairs. It is a Bill of 31 Clauses. I have read carefully every word of it and from my practical knowledge of the general psychology and outlook of the people of this country, before I could allow the Bill to pass through either this House or the Standing Committee, I should feel bound, personally, to put down no fewer than 149 Amendments. If the Chair accepted those Amendments and if I could mystify the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or bring him to realise the significance of those Amendments, and get his acceptance of them, they would necessitate a further 212 consequential Amendments. I am only one Member of the House representing an industrial community and many people whose only bobby, probably, is a little flutter now and then, whether on the dogs or by means of a ticket in a sweepstake or lottery.
This Bill as it is worded needs very close consideration and when the Whips are put on the House is not given an opportunity for that intelligent consideration of a Bill which this Bill demands. I admit that if the Bill is brought on to the Floor of the House it will go through. But, as I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman upstairs it will lead to the evils of betting being multiplied to a degree almost inconceivable at the present time. Has the Bill been brought here because it was obstructed upstairs? I notice that the right hon. Gentleman was careful not to mention that the opposition upstairs had grown too strong or too' inquisitive but I noticed a nod of assent to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) when she suggested that certain Members of the Committee had obstructed the Bill's progress. How far had the Government an opportunity on Clause 1 of the Bill of putting its constructive programme before the Members of the Committee? There were 326 columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT as a result of the deliberations of the Committee at seven meetings and of those 326 columns the Government and the supporters of the Bill—those who desired to give the right hon. Gentleman the greatest possible power to push the Bill
through—occupy 147 columns. The wicked opposition to whom the Noble Lady refers as having attempted to harass and obstruct the progress of the Bill, only occupied 151 columns.

Viscountess ASTOR: Perhaps it seemed longer.

Mr. PIKE: Thus the difference between obstruction and construction from that point of view was a sum total of four columns. When the Government have 147 columns and the Opposition only 151 columns, how can it be said that there was sufficient obstruction to warrant the breaking of all constitutional precedents by bringing the Measure back from the Committee to the Floor of the House? Any hon. Member who takes the trouble to read the report of the Committee stage must come to the conclusion that those engaged in the consideration of the Measure had only one concern, and that was to improve it so that it would conform to general requirements and public rights. While the Government did defeat us on the major issue, how did they do it? We lost on the main Clause of the Bill by seven votes, the voting being 31 to 24, and in that 31 there were five Departmental votes. There was the right hon. Gentleman and his private secretary. There was the private secretary to the private secretary and there was the private secretary to the two private secretaries. If that is not obstructing the free expression of opinion by members of a Committee on a contentious Bill, I have not yet learned the meaning of the word "obstruction."

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the hon. Member—

Mr. PIKE: I would give way willingly, as I usually do to a lady, but I have sat in the Committee upstairs with the Noble Lady and she has been on the opposite side from me, and unless it suited her own convenience she never gave way. It does not suit my convenience to do so at the moment. The great reason why this Bill ought not to be forced through in the Division Lobbies by Members who will not have heard the discussions here or the previous discussions in Committee, is that in its present form it is not desired by the country.
The Noble Lady has said that the great Christian forces of the country are supporting the Measure. That is not true.
They are supporting—those who are supporting it—the recommendations of the Royal Commission in respect to the Bill, but the Bill does not embody some of the most important of those recommendations, and all the pamphlets that I have read from the supporting organisations of the churches and other societies in the country are very apprehensive of the Government's action in not including what they regard as the Betting Commission's most urgent request, namely, control to a much greater degree of the use of the totalisator on the tracks. 1 would go a step further. If that be the evidence upon which the Government have brought the Bill back to the Floor of the House, do they take no notice of the conference that was held at Bristol? The Under-Secretary says
"No."

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank) indicated dissent.

Mr. PIKE: Well, he gave a nod in the negative. When I used to ask my employer for a rise in wages, and he nodded his head in the negative, I always knew it was no use pursuing the point, but here I am permitted to pursue the argument, and I say that that conference was representative of hundreds of thousands of working men in this country. Whether they had a political outlook or not, there is one thing that is true. Almost every representative at that conference was representative—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: On a point of Order. On the Motion before the House, is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to the declarations of a party, and is this House in any sense ruled by an outside organisation?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot say that it is out of order for hon. Members to refer to the deliberations or decisions of a body outside Parliament. At the same time, I cannot see how any such decision could possibly affect the question as to whether this Bill should be considered on the Floor of this House or in Committee upstairs.

Mr. FOOT: Would it be in order for me to refer in a Debate here, as a direction to Parliament, to the decisions of my party organisation, or would it be in order for members of the Labour party to quote as part of the directions for Parliamentary discussion what is done by
the Trades Union Congress or a labour organisation outside?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Speaking on the spur of the moment, I cannot say that it would be out of order, though it might be quite immaterial.

Mr. PIKE: My reason for referring to the conference was that there were hundreds of delegates, representing thousands of National Government supporters, all determined, at least by their votes, to show to the Government that they were fully alive to the dangers of this Measure and also to the actual requirements of the public in respect to Part II of the Bill. I will admit that the Government had no time to reply at that Conference. Had they chosen to have it on the agenda a little earlier, they would have had time, but when they left the Mover and the Seconder the last five minutes of the proceedings without the necessity of having to reply because the clock had struck time, it is hardly fair to suggest that what was done was not representative of the views of the people of the country.
I suggest that the Bill should not come down to the Floor of this House until it has had closer scrutiny upstairs, because the one great factor that is going to make the Bill a workable success, if it ever becomes law, is willingness on the part of the public to work within its limits, and unless the Government can thoroughly understand—the Betting Commission's report will never enable them to understand it—the psychological outlook of the whole of the community—the betting community, if you like—on the operation of the Bill, they will never be able to present anything that will be practicable legislation. I am surprised, more especially in view of the speeches that I have heard the Under-Secretary of State make on many occasions in this House on the preservation of the rights and liberties of individual Members and the traditions of this House, that he should join the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in asking that this Motion should be carried. It is plain to anyone who has been associated with the Bill upstairs or in the country that it will create an atmosphere of second-rate political importance during the next 12 months, and certainly of first-rate political importance when the public at large begin to understand its operation.
It is idle to ask this House to believe that the Committee upstairs are incompetent to deal with the Bill, when the Government have decided to allow the only Clause that the Committee has been allowed to deal with to remain where it is. Clause 1 of the Bill, the most contentious Clause in the whole Bill, was thoroughly thrashed out by the Government themselves occupying 147 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT in its explanation, and it was thoroughly thrashed out by the Opposition in the 151 columns of their answers to that explanation, but the Committee upstairs was composed of only a few Members of this House, and there are hundreds of Members who, I know, will be directly opposed to the general principle of Clause 1 and who will oppose it not only on social grounds but on political grounds. To suggest that that shall not come back to the Floor of the House for reconsideration is the greatest violation of Parliamentary rights that this House has ever had perpetrated upon it, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to bring back the Bill, I ask him to bring it back wholeheartedly.
I shall accept the words of the right lion. Gentleman that this is not a great political issue, and I suggest to him that, in view of his action, if he brings the Bill down to the Floor of the House without giving rightful consideration to its Clauses, I shall be within my rights, without the slightest violation of my pledge to the National Government, in going into the Division Lobby on every Clause on which I consider it necessary to oppose their action or their intention; and much as I respect loyalty to the Whip, it is my intention, out of sheer protest at this great violation, to go into the Division Lobby and vote against the Government, and I hope to take the rest with me.

6.9 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I did not intend to takepart in this Debate at the commencement, and I am not going to bandy words with the Government or the Opposition on the merits of the Bill, because, in my view at least, they arise to a very small extent on this discussion. As far as I know—I am not, of course, suggesting that the last speaker was out of order—we have made an innovation to-day even greater than I thought if, under
this new procedure, it is possible to have a second Second Reading Debate on a Bill which has once gone upstairs. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), whom I am sorry not to see in her place, suggested that all those who were objecting to the course taken by the Government were actuated solely by the fact that they were opponents of the Bill. That is not true in my own case. I did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading, and I do not know that I shall vote against any of the Government's views on the Bill when it comes to be discussed next week.
I am concerned with another point of view, and I regret that it should fall to my lot to put it, because I am fully sensible of the fact that there have been, at any rate in the past and in the immediate past, Members in this House, on the back benches here, who were far better able to put a point of view connected with procedure and precedent than I am; and as one of the older Members of the House, I rather regret that in recent years we have not had, as we used to have, in all parts of the House, and in all parties, Members who took the deepest interest in our procedure. It seems to me that any corporate body, especially a body like this honourable House, with all its great traditions, should have at any rate a small proportion of its Members who take a real and lively interest in its traditions and procedure. We had such in the old days in men like Lord Banbury, the late Sir Henry Craik, and others, who occupied very great positions in this respect and who, when they put points on pure questions of procedure, precedent, and points of order to the Government of the day, were listened to with respect, even though they were in opposition to that Government. I have no hesitation in saying that to-day we break through every procedure and precedent: I would venture to suggest that the rules of the House and the interpretation put on those rules by Erskine May and other authorities and by the rulings of Speakers and Chairmen of Committees, together with precedent, constitute what I may call the domestic constitution under which we work and which, in its turn, supports the great and free Constitution under which we live.
I must apologise to my Noble Friend, whom I now see opposite, if I appeared
to jeer at some of her remarks, but I cannot accept her view that this question of precedent is not important, and I cannot accept the view, which is far too common, that rules are only made to be broken.

Viscountess ASTOR: I never said that.

Earl WINTERTON: I am glad I have put a wrong interpretation on the Noble Lady's speech. This body of rules and rulings and other things to which I have referred is roughly analogous to the laws, judicial decisions, and customs of the courts of law, and I suppose—I am no lawyer—it may be presumed that it frequently happens that a judge, especially if, as is usually the case, he is a man of humane temperament, has a case before him in which he only wishes he could give a decision in another direction, but he is bound to act in a certain way because he is acting under the law; that, broadly speaking, should be the attitude of the House of Commons. I will short-circuit what I was saying by observing that in my opinion we should not make breaches of precedents unless there is a very good reason for so doing.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had an extremely difficult task in commending this Motion to the House, though he had this great advantage in commending it, that he is personally one of the most popular Home Secretaries I have ever known, in any party. Therefore, he of all men should be able to use an argument that is not very valid or watertight and, as the phrase is, "get away with it," but the right hon. Gentleman literally gave I10 reason beyond the old argument that it is a matter of convenience for the Government. The House will recollect that the famous
"agreement to differ" was just a matter of convenience for the Government, and therefore the House of Commons accepted it. It is, therefore, no answer to say that the House can decide in the matter. Of course it can, but the House usually decides in matters of this kind as the Government ask it to decide, and without being cynical I may observe that with a majority of 400 the House invariably decides as the Government ask it to decide. There are, of course, exceptions to that rule. When a question of breach of precedent or an innovation in our procedure
is a manifest injustice, the general sense of the Rouse usually induces the Chief Whip or the Leader of the House to recede from the position he has first taken up. But I say quite frankly that I do not think there is any manifest injustice here; it is only, I think, a somewhat dangerous precedent. I will give the reasons why I think so.
Let us consider the position of Committees upstairs. In my 30 years' experience of this House the powers given to Chairmen of Committees have greatly increased. When I was a member of Committees upstairs he had practically no power. Now he has far more power. Therefore, it cannot be said that when a Government send a Bill upstairs they have lost all control over how the proceedings of the Committee shall be carried on, because they have the majority on the Committee and the Chairman has very considerable powers. Everybody who has been a member of Committees as I have been knows that it often happens that the Committee as a whole hears the views of Opposition Members and that even the Minister is impressed by the reasonableness of objections put forward. Without saying anything against the House, one must face the obvious fact that in a discussion in Committee as a rule the majority of the Members do not hear the arguments. How often have we known in the history of this House times when practically the whole of us have been united on a certain point, when Members supporting the Government—not any particular Government—have one after the other urged the Government to give way, and when the Government have not had a single supporter for their point of view. The Division has been called, the Whips say "aye" or "no," as the case may be, and the question is settled by Members who have not heard a word of the discussion. You do not get that upstairs in Committee to anything like the same extent, and there is consequently more often a corporate view based on fairness and reason.
Let us visualise this situation. A Minister comes before a Committee with a Bill. His supporters on the Committee are impressed by the reasonableness of the opponents to the Bill, and in consequence the Minister gives way, as he is entitled to do, and the Bill on the first
Clause is altered. Then the Prime Minister, or the Chief Whip or some member of the Cabinet, comes forward, and says, "The Committee has been much too weak; we must stop this sort of thing and bring the Bill downstairs." I suggest that that does derogate from the position of Committees. It derogates to some extent from the independence of Members of the House as individuals. I do not want to be over-critical of my right hon. Friend, but I do say this—and I am not making any attack on the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House—that when you make a breach in precedent, as you are doing this afternoon, it ought to be fully explained in a reasoned speech by the Leader of the House who is the person responsible. We are always having innovations. We had one this afternoon when a Minister asked leave to make a statement after Questions. I always understood that you could make a statement only in answer to a question, unless it was a personal statement. When we make these changes there ought to be a reasoned explanation.
I do not know that I am going to vote against the Government, although I do not think that I can vote for them, but I do want to emphasise the point I have tried to put to the House, namely, that we ought not lightly to abandon our precedents unless strong reasons can be shown for so doing. I repeat what I have said before, that the whole tendency in this Parliament—I do not say that the Leaders or the Chief Whip are to blame, for it may have been necessary in the circumstances—has been to create precedents in all sorts of ways, and it is going to give to this party when it is in Opposition, as it is bound to be some day, a very nasty whip with which to be beaten. That has been the whole tendency of this Parliament, and it always arises in a Parliament where there is an enormous influx of new Members not familiar with the procedure of the House. For these reasons, I hope that before the conclusion of the Debate we shall have more reasoned arguments for the course that has been advocated by the Government than we have had hitherto.

6.20 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: He would be a bold junior back bencher who
attempted in any way to challenge the authority of the Noble Lord on questions of precedents and the rules and customs observed by this House, but I support the Motion for purely practical reasons. I do not think that even the Noble Lord challenged the competency of the individual members of Committee "D" or the Committee as such to examine this important question in all its details, but we are faced with the present situation. Some of us might regret that owing to Parliamentary arrangements it was not possible to commit this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House in the first instance. Whether that be a matter for regret or otherwise does not substantially affect the position at this time. We know full well, as practical politicians and Parliamentarians, that if this Motion were defeated and the Bill were further considered in Committee upstairs that, owing to the limitation of power possessed by Chairmen of Committees, there would not be the slightest opportunity of the Bill coming down to the Floor of the House for the Third Reading before 16th November. It is obvious from the speeches which have been made from all sides of the House to-day that there is a grave and substantial difference of opinion on questions of major interest, whether under Part I or Part II of the Bill. For that particular reason I venture to think that the Government are wise in giving the House of Commons as a whole the opportunity of expressing fearlessly and freely any opinions they may hold on this question.
There is another point of view I desire to put. There is not the slightest doubt, as the Home Secretary told the House of Commons and the country, that this is definitely not a party matter. He told the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, he told the Committee upstairs before we rose for the summer vacation, and he told public audiences at Glasgow and throughout the country. That is the official view expressed by my right hon. Friend who is the representative of the Government. That view has been supported this afternoon by the spokesman of the official Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) on behalf of his party. It was supported also by my right hon. Friend who sits below me. We therefore have agreement on one
point of great interest; all three parties represented in the House agree that it is not a party issue. Therefore, I feel that it is right that even at this late stage one can appeal to my hon. Friends to agree to this Motion and to allow the more important questions of detail, which will be considered by the Committee of the House on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week, to be examined purely from a public interest point of view and not allow themselves to be bound in their decisions by the party Whips.
I do not want to enter into the arguments which have been addressed to the House on the Bill itself. Whatever one has to say about the Bill can be better postponed until next week. I appeal to my hon. Friends who have taken such a great interest, particularly in Part I of the Bill upstairs—and really that is the only Part of the Bill which we have had an opportunity of considering—to realise that if they defeat this Motion they will not have an opportunity of expressing their views further because for all practical purposes the Bill will be dead. We know that if the Bill is withdrawn in this Session owing to the pressure of public business on Parliamentary time there is not the slightest hope that it will be included in the King's Speech for next Session, and that in 1936 it is doubtful whether any Government whether national or party, will feel it advisable to introduce such a controversial Measure on the eve of an election. Therefore, if they are logical in their view they will defeat their own ends, and I ask them to support the Government so that Members in all parts of the House may have an opportunity of expressing their feelings on this matter one way or the other. There is not the slightest doubt that the country itself would not like to see its representatives muzzled on this question.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to say a few words on the point of view of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). He pointed out that the Government are setting very dangerous precedents which may be used to the full by this party whenever it comes into power. I am not concerned to deny that. If alterations are made
we shall be as entitled to use them as any other Government. What I am concerned with is the fact that we consider there are parts of the Parliamentary machine which want reforming, and we do not think the right way to do it is by setting these kind of ad hoc precedents. They are set purely to suit the exigencies of a Government who have not conducted the business properly. They have not been thought out. Here we have a complicated Bill of a type which involves a large number of vested private interests. It always means, when we are regulating a business in which there is money, that there is bound to be a lot of controversy over details. I have always held, ever since I came to the House, that it is impossible for the House to discuss and decide on details. You cannot get that in an assembly of the size of this House, and the proper procedure is for the details to be thrashed out upstairs and to leave this House to deal with broad matters of principle. If that is to be done it is obvious that the Committees upstairs must be properly constituted and have proper rules of procedure.
Broadly speaking, committee work upstairs divides itself into two separate categories. There is the dog-fight and there is the business-like committee. It is an appalling waste of money to have the kind of dog-fight which we have seen sometimes when, after days and days of wasting time, the Committee gets about half-way through the first line. That ought not to be allowed. I want the Opposition always to have a full chance to put its case, but it ought not to be allowed to waste public time in that way. Therefore, when a Government had a Measure of this kind they ought to have realised, with the extent of lobbying there has been on this matter by vested interests, that they would have a difficult time upstairs. They ought to have come to the House and said, "We want to get this through; it is a detailed matter, and time is short. Let us do what we have done on other occasions and give proper powers to the Chairman of the Committee." That was not done. They chanced their arm upstairs, and now they try to bring the Bill down to the House at the fag-end of the Session. Suppose this Motion is carried. We shall then have three days in which to go through some 30 Clauses, and no one can say that
the work will be done satisfactorily. We have seen Bills considered in Committee on the Floor of the House with an elaborate time-table. Is there to be any time-table for this Bill? Is there to be anything to prevent a number of speakers taking up the whole of the time on minor points, with the result that the really important points are not discussed at all.
The Government plead necessity for their action. Necessity is a very bad plea in a matter of this sort. An hon. Member below the Gangway suggests that time is very short, and that otherwise the Bill would be lost altogether. That is one of the ways of whipping-up supporters of the Government—to say that this is the last chance, that this is the last opportunity for securing a great social reform. It is not so. The noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who has just interrupted, is very influential, and I gather that others who want this Bill are influential, and if they can persuade the Government to bring the Bill on to the Floor of the House after it has been partly considered in Committee they can also make the Government agree to carry it over to next Session. We had a big change in precedent quite recently, when a Bill was not only carried over from one Session to another but from one Parliament to another. I have always regarded the "massacre of the innocents" every year as representing an appalling waste of time. I would not have procedure altered just because of this Bill. I do not think such things ought to be done on a special occasion merely because the Government ask it. What we want is a proper consideration of the way in which this House works. The Noble Lord said we have constantly, day after day, little changes and more little changes, and I entirely agree with him that that is the wrong way of doing it. I agree with him that we ought to have a collective feeling for the way in which this House does its business. Anyone who has taken the trouble to consider any ether Constitution knows the kind of almost indescribable points that make up the business procedure of this House. We cannot put them down on paper. They are matters of convention, custom and so forth, and it would be a very dangerous thing to allow them to be done away with merely because we have a
Government with a very large majority and with the minority putting up a fight.
It would be a different matter if the House seriously considered that alterations in its procedure were required. Such alterations have been made a great many times in the course of the last 40 or 50 years, and they have been necessary in a period of great change, because we do not want to have a static procedure; but to undertake such changes on a well-thought-out plan is a different matter from this method of constant eating away, undertaken for the convenience of Ministers and the Government. The last three years have seen a greater invasion of the historic rights of Parliament than ever occurred in a similar period of time. If Lord Banbury and others had been here I do not think they would have lasted the three years, in face of these invasions upon the control of the House. On these benches we are not taking sides on the Bill—personally, I am not interested in the manufacture of totalisators or the running of dogs—but we take the view that this is the wrong way of doing things, and that the Government ought to have come down to the House to say either that they were going to give the Chairman upstairs the proper powers to get the Bill through in face of obstruction or to say, "This is a matter which must be settled, and we want it fully considered in Committee and we will carry it on in Committee." Above all, we think that the Government, who have been in office for three years now, ought to have considered the major changes, and not the minor changes only, in our procedure which are necessary to get business through in time.

6.35 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I would like to associate myself with everything which has been said by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). This is a far bigger matter than any question of either dogs or totalisators: it concerns the procedure of the House of Commons. This House has always been very jealous of its rights and privileges, and of the procedure which it has established to secure those rights and privileges, and I trust the House will hesitate to-night to alter that procedure, on this particular matter, without the most careful consideration. I had proposed to show that there was no precedent for the course proposed by the Government, but
in view of the Ruling of the Deputy-Speaker that there was no precedent, it is unnecessary for me to deal further with that aspect of the matter. The Deputy-Speaker added that while that was so it was, of course, within the power of the House to do anything which it desired, and of that, of course, we are aware. That is what is now really before us—whether what is proposed is desirable in the interests of free speech and the rights and privileges of this House, and with the permission of Mr. Speaker I will venture to quote three sentences from a memorandum which Mr. Speaker himself submitted to the Committee on Procedure in 1931, because they have a very direct bearing on this subject:
In criticising the present procedure of Parliament many things have to be taken into consideration. It must first of all be remembered that the procedure of Parliament has not been established, as it were, at one stroke by any Committee or body set up for the purpose; on the contrary, it has been gradually evolved under the working of Parliament through long ages of time, every rule being the result of experience, additions, alterations, amendments being made from time to time to meet changing circumstances and the needs created by different events that have taken place. It must not, however, be said that for that reason present circumstances do not need changes to meet them. On the other hand, it is right to say that changes must not be lightly undertaken without fully realising and very carefully weighing what the ultimate effect may he, perhaps quite contrary to what may be anticipated.
Further he said:
It has been truly said that Parliament should be the mirror of the Nation, but it must be remembered that that does not mean only one side of the mirror, and we must be careful in any rules or alterations of rules of procedure that we make that we safeguard the full rights of the minorities, so that their views may be fully and amply expressed. It ought not to be forgotten that the minority of one day may he the majority of another, and vice versa.
I think those wise words ought to be taken into consideration by the House. Rules should not be altered to meet a particular emergency, particularly an
emergency of a Government of the day. There is another quotation I would like to make and it is from the report of the Committee before whom Mr. Speaker gave evidence:
Your Committee recommend that power to select Amendments should be given to all Chairmen of Standing Committees. They are of opinion that the practice of con-
ferring this power on a Chairman of a Standing Committee by resolution in the case of a particular Bill is objectionable and, by causing resentment, leads to waste of time. Such resolutions give the impression that the Government of the day desires to push through a particular Bill without full discussion.
Nothing could be more apropos of the present case. The altering of our procedure to meet this particular emergency is what the Committee said was highly undesirable, and I beg the House to associate itself with the opinion of the Committee. This proposal affects a far bigger matter than any particular Bill. As the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who has just spoken from the Opposition Front Bench, said, the precedent we lay down to-night may carry us a great deal farther in the future than we now realise. If we lay down a new precedent we cannot expect that it will not be used by other Governments. The Prime Minister and many of his colleagues have plumed themselves in recent speeches on the fact that this country was not as other countries, that owing to the National Government we have no dictatorship. The Prime Minister said that the National Government had shown, that this country was truly the home of popular liberty. Does 'a Motion like this confirm that opinion An hon. Friend who spoke so eloquently a few moments ago asked if there were a universal demand from the country to pass this Bill immediately. What are the facts? As he said, whenever this Bill has been brought before any popular assembly in the country—and it has been brought before a number—it has been turned down by overwhelming majorities unless substantially amended. So far as the country is concerned, I would remind the House that the Conservative party are the largest party in the House, and therefore its supporters have some right to express an opinion.

Mr. GROVES: It does not look like it.

Sir W. DAVISON: It does not look like it, but I am not a voice crying in the wilderness. It has been said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad, and here the Government are carrying out the idea that they know better than the people themselves what the people want 'and what is good for the people, and it is that which is causing animosity to the Government and rousing
feeling against it. I am a supporter of the National Government, I recognise that they have done great things for the country, and, therefore, I regret more than I can say that they should be so obsessed with their own sense of self-sufficiency as to try to force down the throats of the populace things which the people do not want, and that in doing so they should even go to the length of altering the procedure of this ancient House. I have quoted the views of the Committee which considered this matter, and I have quoted the evidence of Mr. Speaker, who said that the House ought to hesitate before making changes in procedure to meet particular difficulties, especially the difficulties of the Government of the day. I beg the House to pay attention to those calm and considered judgments, without heat, and looking only to the good of the country and the good of the House, and if that is done I feel confident that this Motion will he rejected.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out the first word "Clause," and to insert "Part".
The effect of this Amendment, if carried, will be to bring down from the Standing Committee only Part II of this Measure and to leave Part I to the consideration of the Committee. I feel some diffidence in moving this Amendment, because there is one Member in this House who is far more qualified than I am to speak on this matter. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) referred with regret to the absence of Members who have made a special study of procedure and have a great knowledge of it. There is one such Member present, the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who could, were he free, handle this matter better than any of us. If there is one Member to whom this subject would appeal and who would handle it excellently it is the Under-Secretary. In moving this Amendment I feel rather as Elisha must have felt when Elijah was carried to Heaven in a fiery chariot, only in this case he has been carried not to Heaven, and I find him a willing captive in the House of Rimmon and one of the acolytes of the Priests of Baal. It is only left to me to re-echo the prayer that a double portion of his spirit may fall
upon me in moving this Amendment. If there is any disposition to mock at my poor efforts, those who do so may have to fight with a bear later.
I regard the proposal of the Government with the very greatest suspicion. It far transcends in importance the question of the Bill. I have never made any defence of my attitude on the Bill. I shall oppose it resolutely as long as one condition remains in it, but even if I supported it I should still adopt the same attitude about the Motion which the Government are putting before us. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) made an impassioned appeal to us to support the Government because she wants the Bill. She took such an enormous interest in it that out of the seven days which were devoted to it in Committee, she was absent for three of them, and only gave us the smallest amount of her time during the rest of the deliberations. She has asked us to support the Motion of the Government on the ground that it is the only way we can get the Bill. I dispute that contention, and shall put to the Government a suggestion which will still enable them to get their Bill without violating the precedents of the House.
The matter of precedent is one of very great importance, and of much graver importance than many Members attach to it. Here we are making a new departure, and a very dangerous one, because it is in effect a damping down of the power of the private Member. The Standing Committees differ, as my Noble Friend has already stated, from a Committee of the Whole House in two particulars. The first is that, as a rule, they allow a much closer investigation and a much more careful discussion of the Measure before the House than is allowed in Committee of the Whole House, and consequently the Debate often sways an appreciable number of votes. It is a most peculiar thing that those who are always loudest in praising the democratic system of our Parliamentary Government deal it the most savage blows. I say in all seriousness, and believing that I am not exaggerating in the least, that the power of Parliament in this country is the power of the private Member. It is the belief that it is in the power of the private Member to criticise and influence
events, and if that power is curtailed, so will the influence and the prestige of Parliament be curtailed. I sincerely believe that that power will be curtailed if this Motion be passed to-day.
Consider the possibilities. It has been admitted that there is no precedent. There have been many precedents for dividing a Bill, a famous case being the Railways Bill of 1921. There have been precedents for giving wide powers to Chairmen of Standing Committees, but never before has a Bill which has been partially discussed, and in which the vital principle is in the process of being discussed—and remember that in this Bill Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 hang very much together—been changed from one tribunal to another. It is in direct contravention at least of the spirit of Section 2 of Standing Order No. 46 where it is laid down that a Bill may be committed to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions. The Bill has been committed to a Standing Committee in respect of one provision, and now it is to be committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the same provision, and I maintain—though I have no doubt that it is technically within the power of the House to do it—that the effect of that procedure is to fly straight in the face of the spirit of the Standing Order. It also is a blow at the whole of the Standing Committee procedure, because what, in effect, the Home Secretary and the Government are saying is that the Standing Committee is not competent to carry out the deliberations which it began.
The Government may say, "The Standing Committee breaks down if you and your friends get up and talk a lot in opposition." But hon. Members of this House have the right to use any Parliamentary means in their power to oppose a Measure of which they disapprove. I am the last person to suggest that the Standing Committee procedure does not need amending. I think that it does. In my short Parliamentary life I have sat on a good many Standing Committees, and in my view the procedure needs speeding up. The Government have on the Paper a Motion to alter it. This procedure flies right across the whole of the principle of the matter, and the re-
vised Standing Orders are being flouted by this Measure. What is the good of altering your Standing Orders if you are to change the procedure by an ad hoc resolution in respect of any Measure when it suits you? Consider the dangers to which this may lead. Imagine a Government with a long Bill containing certain controversial Clauses, with not much time at their disposal. Up the Bill goes to Standing Committee, and the procedure is started. The thing becomes difficult and down it comes to the House for the controversial and vital Clauses. Up it goes again to be finished off. In fact, it goes on and on and on, and down and down and down and round and round and round. This sort of thing inevitably must lead to a curtailment of the time allowed to private Members for discussion. The only way in which any opposition in the House, be it from the back benches of the Government or from the official Opposition, can interfere or really affect government legislation is by the time factor, and this new procedure is reducing the time factor materially. I do not think that, in view of the amendment of the Standing Orders, it is a good thing, and I am not sure whether, when we get into Opposition, we shall not deeply regret having given such a precedent to hon. Members opposite. As has already been said, if any procedure is altered, the proper way is to amend the Standing Orders, and not to give ad hoc changes for special cases. The departing from precedent whenever it suits one is a most dangerous practice.
Among other hobbies, I claim to study the science of heraldry. The other day I was looking through a book and came across the arms and the motto of the ancient and honourable family of Gilmour, and on inspection I found that the family motto was "Non penna sed usus"—not the pen but custom. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to be true to his family motto and to its traditions. The Government are in a difficult situation over the Bill. It is not their fault, and not the fault of the Opposition. As the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) pointed out, not only did the supporters of the Bill speak almost as much as we did, but the Closure was applied only four times during the ten sittings. But there is a way out which I belive would be better. We should take Part II on the Floor of the
House, and I do not believe that there woud be opposition to that course—certainly not from us. There might be a little from hon. Members opposite. Let the House deal with it on the Floor of the House, following not innumerable but several precedents. Give the Chairman of the Standing Committee the wide powers of selection of Amendments which are to be given when the new Standing Orders are passed. When you have done that to facilitate the progress of the Bill, then let the Bill take its chance. I believe that you could in those circumstances get it through. You would have done everything you were justified in doing to facilitate its progress, and if you lost it it would be less disastrous even from the point of view of the Government than if they have this new and most undesirable procedure.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to see their way to accept the Amendment as a possible way out of an extremely difficult and dangerous situation, which they have entirely created for themselves. This Bill was committed to a Standing Committee just before we rose for the Summer Recess. The Committee, even though it sat on more than its normal number of occasions per week, was only able to have 10 actual meetings. Surely, it is for the Government to realise that it is humanly impossible to examine a Bill which was so contentious and so unpopular with a great many Members of this House and certainly with the majority of the people of the country in 10 sessions of the Standing Committee. If the Government had wanted the Bill to have been properly considered, it should have been committed to a Standing Committee at a reasonable time, so that they could have inquired properly into the Bill and reported to the House in plenty of time before the end of the Session. I think that it would be a monstrous untruth to say that there was any obstruction at all in those 10 meetings. Every Amendment which was put was a reasonable Amendment, and on no occasion do I remember hearing an irrelevant speech except from some of the supporters of the Measure from time to time. Therefore, it does not seem that this lack of
time for the consideration of the Bill is in any way the fault of the opponents of the Measure, and if that is the case there is no excuse whatever for bringing the Bill downstairs. As has been pointed out by more able Parliamentarians than I, it has never been done before, and leaves an extremely dangerous precedent for the future.
I was more than impressed by the awful picture drawn by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) who visualised this House, playing battledore and shuttlecock with the Bill upstairs and downstairs whenever it suited their convenience, and I can see that that may well happen. It may mean that if this procedure goes on we shall find alternate Clauses being taken upstairs to the great confusion of the House and the ultimate destruction of reasonable Parliamentary government. There must be some reason for asking the ordinary Member of this House to support this fanatical desire of the Government to proceed with a Bill which they know not only to be unpopular, but unworkable. I do not know that I shall be in order in discussing the Bill at all on this Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was about to remind the hon. Member that the Motion itself has nothing to do with the provisions of the Bill, and the Amendment has still less to do with the Bill. So far neither the Mover nor Seconder has referred to the Amendment which they are proposing.

Mr. WISE: I will endeavour to come to the Amendment on the Paper. This Amendment proposes to leave Part I of the Bill with Standing Committee D and to bring in Part II, if the Government so wish it, down to the Floor of the House where the Government can use all the Parliamentary machinery they like to secure its easy passage. The object of leaving Part I with the Standing Committee is that the Committee has after some difficulty got through one Clause, and the remaining Clauses of Part I of the Bill are very closely connected with Clause 1. I think it is not fair on the Committee of the whole House to expect them to proceed to the consideration of the remaining Clauses of Part I of the Bill without having heard the arguments on Clause 1. There is also the fact that by leaving Part I
with the Standing Committee, we avoid a very serious breach of precedent and keep in conformity with the established custom of this House. I wish the Government would consider the matter on these lines. Clause 1 was the most contentious Clause, and, having disposed of that, it, is reasonable to assume that the passage of the remaining Clauses of Part I would not be so difficult, because many of the Amendments to subsequent Clauses have already fallen owing to the rejection of Amendments to Clause 1. The Committee of the whole House would be able to consider Part II, which is not in any way connected with Part 1. and deals with a totally different set of subjects, which, I think, would be better dealt with by a Committee of the House. The Standing Committee, I found after a little experience, was an unsympathetic one from our point of view. It had on it an almost unprecedented number of Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries, which made the task of the Opposition extremely difficult. I doubt much prefer to see Part I considered where representatives of the whole House
are able to speak adequately. I do appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment and to relieve their supporters from a great deal of anxiety about their present procedure. By doing this they would also go a good deal of the way towards meeting the very reasonable demand of the Opposition that this quite unconstitutional procedure should not be resorted to.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: May I as a Member of the Standing Committee be allowed to make a few observations? The Bill was an exceptionally contentious one. It obtained a Second Reading without a Division because it was well known that it was to be sent to a Standing Committee where it would have a thorough examination, and where an unpopular Bill would be made into something that would be workable. That Committee for seven days considered the Bill, and its most contentious Clause was licked into shape. Now it is proposed that the Bill should be brought down to the Floor of the House. We must accept the fact that there is no precedent for doing this after one Clause has been passed by the Standing Committee. One may well ask what is the object of the Government in bringing a
contentious Measure containing 31 Clauses down to the Floor of the House with an allowance of only three days for discussion, when it has already taken seven days of discussion upstairs in Committee to deal with one Clause. One may also ask whether it is better that the Bill should be discussed and fought out on the Floor of the House rather than in the Standing Committee. Members know that if the Government bring even a bad Bill down to the Floor of the House, with their huge and loyal majority they will pass it, even though the majority of the Members do not hear a word of the discussions for or against. Every Clause will be passed in the Committee stage, whether it is good, bad or indifferent. Members will vote in the Lobbies whether they have heard the discussions or not. Surely it is better to leave the Bill to a Standing Committee where the Members are present all the time and constitute a corporate body. They would listen to the discussions, they would be able to weigh the reasonableness of any suggestion put forward and they would be better able to deal adequately with the Measure than any other body.
Part II of the Bill prohibits entirely the holding of lotteries. At a conference that was held in one of the provincial towns recently, it was unanimously decided by our party—by delegates representing millions of people—that lotteries should be allowed. My right hon. Friend may be right in ignoring that, but he is opposing the vote that was taken at a conference of our own party, of which he is such a distinguished member. That resolution was passed only a few weeks ago, and it is within the recollection of every Member of the House. Now it is proposed that this Bill should be rushed through the House by means of all the machinery that the Government can use, with practically no discussion. This is a Government Measure and loyal Government supporters would not feel themselves justified in voting against the Government on a Measure of this sort, even though they may disapprove it. Is this the kind of thing on which you would defeat the Government? It is ridiculous to suppose that any loyal supporter of the Government would vote against the Government on a Betting Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment which the hon. Member is speaking to deals only with Part I of the Bill.

Mr. LEVY: The point I really wanted to make was that we are here breaking all precedents by proposing to bring this Bill down to the Floor of the House with the object of running it through with the minimum of discussion. I will conclude by saying that in my opinion the Bill is a bad Bill, and you cannot make it a good Bill because you force it through the House by making full use of the Government machinery.

7.11 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two on this matter. It is a curious fact to note that with the exception of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), everyone who has spoken in favour of this Amendment is an opponent of the Bill. It is perfectly right and proper from their point of view to put this subject in the form that they have done, but there is no doubt that this is a wrecking Amendment. It could have no other effect but to kill the Bill. Obviously the circumstances of the time govern this case. We have only till the 16th of the month to deal with the problem. If this Amendment were accepted it would impose an impossible position both upon those interested in the first part of the Bill, who would be asked to sit upstairs, and upon the Government, who are responsible for every part of this Measure. It is obvious that if this Amendment were accepted by the House it would mean the end of the Bill. In these circumstances, there is no use in arguing about it. The matter is perfectly clear, and I hope the House will refuse to accept the Amendment.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I do not take the same view as the Home Secretary on this question, but if it will provide a way out, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment so that we can continue the Debate on the Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: As a Member who has been here for some years and who has listened to every word of this Debate, I wish to say that I do not hold the view that we should not make new precedents to suit the occasion. I have always held the view that those who want to reorganise the whole of our
procedure are taking on a job which is very dangerous. It is far wiser in the interest of the House of Commons that when you find a difficulty you should endeavour to meet it. One illustration of this is the very remarkable position in which we are placed with the Government's alternative to-day. But what was the alternative given to the House by the leaders of the Socialist party? They suggested that instead of doing this you should give the Chairmen of the Committees upstairs very big powers in the selection of Amendments. I have seen the Chairman of a Committee upstairs exercising those powers, and never in my life have I dreamt of anything which so cut away the power of ordinary private Members. In the 1929-31 Parliament, the private Member was wiped entirely out of the House of Commons.
One has to look at this Motion from the point of view of whether it is justified in the circumstances, or whether it is not justified. Most of our information goes to show that there is no precedent at all for cutting a Bill in half upstairs. I have not heard anyone speak of the Railways Bill of 1921, and I am not sure whether my memory is right or wrong with regard to it; it might be worth while to inquire about that particular Measure; but, from the point of view of Committees upstairs, I say that if, when the House has solemnly said that a Bill should go to a Committee, and has appointed a chairman and particular people to give their time and service in the mornings to deal with it, and if, when it has run a certain time, it is to be possible by a Resolution of the House to bring it down from that Committee, and away from the Chairman of that Committee, and deal with it on the Floor of the House, very few private Members will take the trouble to attend Committees upstairs. It is a vast strain on many Members to have to attend Committees in the mornings, and the Chairman makes a vast sacrifice in undertaking his job upstairs; and, if this is going to be part of the normal procedure of the House of Commons, it will strike a blow at Committees upstairs, which the House of Commons ought to be very careful in doing.
I said earlier that I do not mind changes and the making of new precedents, but it should only be done if there is no other way out. I would ask why in this case the Committee could not
have been told by a simple Resolution of the House three or four sitting before the Adjournment—it could have been done quite easily, and without disturbing the work of the Committee—that they must go on sitting through July and August until they had finished their work? I am perfectly innocent in the art of obstruction, but I think there are occasions when, if a Committee were told to go on sitting, just as we have all-night sittings here sometimes, the ultimate effect might be a very good one in getting a Bill through. I am not binding myself to that form of procedure, but put it forward as a suggestion which might be considered that there are other things that might have been done. I have listened to Members of the Socialist party saying that the whole programme of the Government was not very well constructed, but, of course, their own programme was so bad that nothing in it was ever well constructed; but I think that the Government might well have made the House sit an extra week in order to deal with the Bill on the Floor of the House if it so important a Measure as the Government maintain. That would be a perfectly fair constitutional method of dealing with it, and would not be creating a precedent.
I am not going to vote against the Government on this occasion, and I am not going to be tied down to the position that the House of Commons must not make a new precedent to cover a very difficult position; but I do say that, if the Government are going to make an entirely new change, we have the right to ask that those people with the greatest experience of the House of Commons, of whom the Home Secretary is certainly one—those who are responsible for leading many of us in the country—should come and give us the strongest views as to why the change should be made. We are told that the House of Commons is the greatest constitutional assembly in the world. We are making an entirely new change here, and surely, if this is the greatest constitutional assembly in the world, it is worth the while of our leaders to tell us why we are making this considerable change. No one knows better than I do the great capacity of the Home Secretary, but I think that the Conservative party, if they are asked to swallow this kind of thing, have a
right to ask that their leaders, to whom they are responsible, should come here and tell us the real reasons for this innovation. For that reason, while I shall not vote against the Motion, I reserve my right to do absolutely nothing, because I do not see why a Member should be committed to a precedent of this sort unless we are told very much more clearly that there is a need for such a change with respect to a particular Measure which has never, so far as I know, received any great support from our leaders on any political platform.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I apologise to the House, which I see is very anxious to divide, for intervening in this discussion, but I will not take up more than about two minutes. As one who has consistently supported the Government since its inception, I do not like this step which is being taken to-day. I cannot agree with many of those Members who are opposing the Bill—I venture no opinion one way or the other as to the merits or demerits of the Bill—nor do I agree with the view, which has been put forward very eloquently, that this is a violation of constitutional principles. It has been said that the House of Commons is breaking its own rules, and I agree that precedents should be observed as far as possible and that it is really very dangerous to interfere with established principles.
On the general merits of bringing a Bill of this sort down to the Floor of the House, I venture to think there are very grave objections. I believe that a Bill of this nature, which cuts right across the ordinary lines of party divisions, is better dealt with upstairs, where there is generally a slightly less heated atmosphere, and certainly a somewhat more judicial frame of mind. I believe that you get at least as good, and probably better, examination of a Measure in that way. Therefore I object on these grounds to bringing the Bill down to the Floor of this House. I do not think that any adequate reason has been advanced for doing so, except that the time is very short; but is it not possible for the Government, without any loss of prestige, at this juncture to postpone the Bill to the next Session, and then to have another Second Reading and take up the Bill again? I think that the Bill is receiving a great deal of opposition in the country
as a whole. I am not interested about that, but I do think that the Government are incurring a very grave danger of annoying, quite gratuitously, a considerable number of their own most loyal supporters in the House of Commons by the step which they are taking. I may say that I do not regard the Motion to-day as being of sufficient importance to vote against the Government. I do not think it is a matter of enormous importance one way or the other. But I know that other Members who are supporters of the Government feel very strongly about it, and if any Government, in small matters, annoys some of its most loyal supporters, it runs a very grave risk for the future.

7.26 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: I agree very much with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) with regard to the question of precedents. I believe it to be essential in any assembly, when any emergency arises, to create precedents, but it should only be done in a case of real emergency, in connection with a Bill which is of real importance to the country. I cannot believe that anyone seriously thinks that it is a matter of national interest that this Bill should be passed into law before the end of the present Session. It was introduced at a very late period of the Session, and it was common talk in this House and in the Lobbies that when the Bill was introduced it was only an even-money chance (a), whether the Government wanted it passed at all, or (b), whether they thought that it had any chance at all of passing. As a Member of the Standing Committee which investigated Clause 1, I came to the conclusion that the attitude of the Government, as expressed

by the Home Secretary, was that they were unwilling to concede one single thing to those who opposed the Bill. I myself moved several Amendments, which I think were perfectly reasonable Amendments.

The reason why we did not divide on the Second Reading, of which the Home Secretary has made a point, was, not because we liked the Bill or approved of it in toto, but because we thought that it ought to be sent to a Standing Committee in order to try to make something of the Bill and improve it if possible. The attitude of the Home Secretary, with no doubt, the full authority and concurrence of the Cabinet, was that nothing should be given away at all. Perfectly reasonable Amendments were brought forward, some of which the Home Secretary got very near to accepting. We all know the old saying that you can fake a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. We got the Home Secretary's mouth very near to the water once or twice, but up went his heels and away he went. We really made very little progress with the Bill, and the reason for that is that there is no popular demand for it in the country. It cuts right across party issues, and I do not think that such a, Bill, for which there is no great demand, affords an occasion for making a precedent in this House. As I said at the beginning, precedents have to be made sometimes, but I do not think it ought to be done in this case. Therefore, I shall, almost for the first time in my life, vote in opposition to the Government on this Motion.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 62.

Division No. 378.]
AYES.
[7.29 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P.G.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cooke, Douglas


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooper, A. Duff


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'Y)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Burghley, Lord
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butler, Richard Austen
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Balniel, Lord
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Barclay- Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Beaumont. Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bernays, Robert
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Denville, Alfred


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Dickie, John P.


Blindell, James
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Doran, Edward


Bossom, A. C.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Drummond Wolff, H. M. C.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Clarke, Frank
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Duggan, Hubert John


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Elmley, Viscount
Liewellin, Major John J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Ross, Ronald D.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Loftus, Pierce C.
Ruggles-arise, Colonel E. A.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
mabane, William
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKie, John Hamilton
Selley, Harry R.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Magnay, Thomas
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Adam
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnees)


Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waller D.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John
Somerset, Thomas


Grimston, R. V.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Milne, Charles
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'moriand)


Hartland, George A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stones, James


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Storey, Samuel


Holdsworth, Herbert
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hopkinson, Austin
Moss, Captain H. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Munro, Patrick
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hornby, Frank
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Connor, Terence James
Sugdan, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Templeton, William P.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Patrick, Colin M.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peake, Osbert
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hurst. Sir Gerald B.
Pearson, William G.
Train, John


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peat, Charles U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Iveagh, Countess of
Penny. Sir George
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Jamieson, Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Janner, Barnett
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Jones, Sir G. W H. (Stoke New'gton)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ker, J. Campbell
Pybus, Sir John
White, Henry Graham


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Radford, E. A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Knight, Holford
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lambert. Rt. Hon. George
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ray, Sir William



Lees-Jones, John
Reá. Walter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-


Levy, Thomas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Renwick, Major Gustav A.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W,
Paling, Wilfred


Anstruther-Gray. W. J.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Pike, Cecil F.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Jenkins, Sir William
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Banfield, John William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Kimball, Lawrence
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Kirkwood, David
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Tinker. John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leonard, William
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Davies, Stephen Owen
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maxton, James
Wise, Alfred R.


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nall, Sir Joseph
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Nathan, Major H. L.



Bill read a Second time.

Bill (except Clause 1) committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).

7.38 p.m.


            The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas
            Inskip)
          : I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that two vacancies in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.
The Motion which stands in my name is one with which, I am afraid, the House is now familiar. It is familiar also with the provision in the Judicature Act, 1925, that, when the judges in the King's Bench Division in addition to the Lord Chief Justice number 15, any vacancy that may occur requires an Address to the King before an appointment can be made to fill it. The position to-day is that the number of judges stands at that level owing to the appointment of Mr. Justice Roche to the Court of Appeal and the resignation of Mr. Justice Acton. An examination of the figures shows that whenever the judges in the King's Bench Division in addition to the Lord Chief Justice have been less in number than 17 the arrears of cases awaiting trial at any given moment tend to increase. The influx of new litigation remains substantially constant, and what I may de scribe as the outflow of cases disposed of in one way or another has not kept pace.
The position, unhappily, may be looked at from another point of view. On 2nd October, 1933, there were no fewer than 1,325 cases awaiting trial. On 2nd October, 1934, there were 1,323—practically the same number. Of those 1,323 cases there were special jury cases which had been ready for trial for ten months and had been set down for the purpose of trial, there were common jury cases which had been waiting for nine months, and there were non-jury cases which had been waiting for eight and a half months. Everyone will, I think, agree that this state of things amounts to a practical denial and not merely a postponement of justice. There are many litigants whose business interests, quite apart from their character or their position in life, may depend upon a decision in litigation in which they are interested. When that
decision cannot be given for so long a period as nine or ten months it may, and I have no doubt it does, mean not merely disappointment but in some cases disaster and, even if that happens in only a small percentage of cases as the result of delay, it is not creditable.
It is not surprising that from many different quarters demands have been made for an addition to His Majesty's judges in the King's Bench Division, not merely for vacancies to be filled when they occur but for an actual increase in the number of His Majesty's judges so that these arrears may not merely be dealt with without permitting a further increase but may actually be reduced, and steadily reduced, until that which everyone regards as an ideal state of things comes about when cases will be tried substantially within two or three months at the most of being set down for trial. The Law Society, the Bar Council and this House even in a manner of speaking may be said to have voiced this demand. Before the Recess 74 Members of the House of Commons put their names to a Resolution asking that additional judges should be appointed. This need for further judges is not the result of illness causing loss of judicial time because, although there have been 153 judicial days lost in the last year, for' instance, attributable to the illness of judges, 154 days have been provided for by the appointment of commissioners of assize. Illness is inevitable from time to time and it is a proper way, perhaps, of providing for that emergency to appoint commissioners who as far as possible may take their place on assize, but we most certainly ought not to depend upon the appointment of commissioners in the future to assist His Majesty's judges in the normal way. The appointment of commissioners, although they invariably discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the public, is not regarded with satisfaction in the different assize towns, where they all prefer to see what is commonly called a red judge. I have figures available if more particular information is desired. The position at the present moment is that there are two vacancies which I am asking the House to say ought to he filled by agreeing to a humble Address being presented in accordance with the provisions of the Judicature Act of 1925. The announcement has been made in another place that in due course
a Bill will be presented to Parliament for an addition of two to the number of judges, and, when that proposal is before this House, it will be the proper time for me to offer some further facts in justification of the proposals contained in that Bill. To-day, I content myself with asking the House, upon the information which I have laid before them, to approve the proposal to fill the existing vacancies.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD DAVIES: When I saw that this Motion had been put down in the name of the Attorney-General I was tempted before I read the statement made by the Lord Chancellor in another place yesterday to oppose it as strongly as I possibly could, because the addition of two judges is merely tinkering with a very severe problem, as the Attorney-General has already pointed out. I noticed, however, that the Lord Chancellor yesterday admitted that the question ought to be considered in its widest possible form and that it is his intention to form another court of inquiry to see what can be done. The position, however, does not seem really to have been dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, or even by the Attorney-General, for the position is not that the addition of two judges will keep the arrears down to their present level, but that unless these arrears be wiped out altogether injustice is being done to litigants. Injustice is being done to the plaintiff, who hopes that he will be successful in his action against the defendant. Injustice is being done to the defendant, who has all the time standing over his head the claim that has been made by the plaintiff. Yet upon the figures of the Attorney-General cases which were set down as long ago as January and February last still await trial.
I should like the House to know what is meant by setting a case down for trial. The dispute will certainly have arisen last year. Then a writ is issued by one party against another. There is then delay until the pleadings are closed; in the pleadings the plaintiff states his case and the defendant states his answer. Then there comes the period during which correspondence is exchanged, and there is a discovery, as we call it, of documents. Then when all the parties are ready the case is set down for trial.
That means that the parties are ready at that particular moment for trial and are desirous of having the question decided between them. At the present moment there are litigants who were ready for trial last January and February and their cases are not yet being tried. What is the good, then, of merely appointing two extra judges to deal with arrears which have been practically constant, as the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General have admitted, for a number of years?
There can be no greater injustice than delayed justice. It leaves the parties all the time in an uncertain state as to what their real position is. Nothing has been done by the present Government or by past Governments to try to remedy this position, except by an occasional addition to the bench. Two additional judges were added as long ago as 1925, but they were only temporary judges and Attorney-General after Attorney-General has had to ask the House to agree to present an Address to His Majesty for the addition of two judges to take the place of the temporary judges who have gone. Is that a fair way of dealing with the public? I say that it is not. The method now adopted for the administration of justice is archaic. Judges still go on circuit. It was an excellent thing in the days of Henry II, when he first sent judges on circuit to inquire into the state of the land, to inform the people what was taking place in London, to deliver the gaol of prisoners, and to settle disputes. Those who are responsible for the present administration of justice do not seem to have moved very much forward since the days of Henry II. They do not seem to realise that there are railways, telephones and telegrams; that there are quicker methods of trying cases. All they have done is to hurry up the procedure in a certain class of cases which fall under the new Procedure Act and to add two temporary judges to the present list.
We should like to see a much more drastic change. The time has come when we should not only inquire into the circuit system and the present method of administering justice on circuit, and the places where justice is administered, but a number of circuit towns at present attended by the judges should he abolished. They are difficult to get at They offer no accommodation. Those responsible have forgotten also that the
population has moved. Places which used to be big assize towns have gone gradually down in the number of population. New towns have sprung into being and have no assizes, and yet from these thickly populated areas litigants have to go with all the expenses of themselves, their witnesses and solicitors, to some little place far removed, difficult to get at, where accommodation is limited and expensive. That is the position of things at the present moment.
I understand that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General seemed satisfied that the number of cases that are being set down for trial were not in excess of what used to be set down a number of years ago; that the figure has been more or less constant. That does not mean that the disputes between people are less or remain the same. It means that the delay in the courts at the present moment is such that people do not resort to the courts. If there is an important dispute, people go to arbitration. Those who have had experience of arbitration realise that it is much more expensive than going to the courts. It is not as effective and it is not as satisfactory, and yet people are prepared to put up with the unsatisfactory method of arbitration in order that they may get quick justice and a finality to the dispute between them and their neighbour. That is not at present afforded by the courts, and the mere addition of two judges, again, will not afford it. The Attorney-General, but for the promise made by him and the Lord Chancellor of the possibility of a new Act of Parliament being brought into being, will have to come here again next year and say once more that litigants have waited—special jury cases 10 months, others nine months, some of them even for 12 months—in order to get justice done.
I understand that the Lord Chancellor was rather at pains to say he was sorry that an expenditure of an extra £9,000 a year would be incurred by the addition of these two judges. I am perfectly sure that this House would not complain, nor would the public complain of a greater addition to the cost of administering justice. Justice ought to be cheap to the litigant. That is the real point. It may be expensive to the State, but the litigant ought to be able to go to a judge and get his dispute settled on the
cheapest possible lines. I would offer no apology to the House for suggesting that the number of judges should be greatly increased, and that the circuit system should be reviewed, possibly abolished altogether, and permanent judges put in the provinces. In that way we would get an administration of justice which would be more in consonance with the times than the present.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I, of course, support this Motion whole-heartedly, but, like my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken, I want to advance one or two reasons why in my opinion even this, Motion does not go far enough. I have been at pains to get out some comparative figures going back for some considerable time. The first thing that hon. Gentleman may not have in mind is that the present normal strength of the King's Bench Division is only one more than it was in 1892. The normal strength is the Lord Chief Justice and 15 other judges, and two more only on occasions like this, when public business requires it. If this Motion goes through, for the time being the King's Bench Division will have three more judges than in 1892.
This question of arrears is by no means a new one; it is as old as the hills and has been the subject of successive reviews for 40 years. It is very interesting to turn back and to see what the Council of Judges sitting in August, 1891, said about the arrears of litigants then. At that time their arrears were very much the same as they are now. There were 1,064 cases carried over from the sittings of 1889–1890 to those of 1890–1891. In 1933 there were 1,052 cases carried over, untried, so that the position that the Council of Judges was assembled to deal with was very much the situation we have to deal with at the present moment. After a careful inquiry, they reported that they had a plan which would insure that there were never fewer than eight judges in London, and usually considerably more. That was to be achieved by reducing the 56 circuit towns at which civil business is taken to 18. That was in 1892, and they added these significant words:
The essential foundation of this scheme"—
because they recommended other things too—
is the grouping of centres for the work of civil cases. If this cannot be done, the council are of opinion that all the other alterations suggested will have but little effect, and the most valuable part of the proposed reforms in the present administration of the law will be frustrated.
The House may be interested to know that there are still 54 towns—56 in 1892—where civil business can be taken, and that the ideal of concentrating civil business in 18 is apparently just as far off as it was then. It is obvious in these days that we ought to have a minimum of eight judges, and usually considerably more, sitting in London to deal with London's business. At that time the population of England was 20,000,000, and that of London 4,250,000. To-day the population of England is 39,000,000, and of London 8,250,000. Notwithstanding these things and other equally significant things—first of all the internal combustion engine was not known in 1892 nor the incidents that my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is using with such devastating effect for the purpose of abolishing his office—nothing has been done. The importance of the internal combustion engine to litigation has been prodigious. It has meant that an enormous number of cases in the courts are cases of accident by motor cars. In the last three weeks the average number of cases in the weekly lists dealing with personal accidents was 175. Therefore, it is clear that that factor alone has enormously increased the amount of litigation.
In the happy times of 1892 people who had to pay taxes, Estate Duties and so on were not quite so eager to contest their obligations as they are now, with Income Tax, Surtax and Estate Duty at a considerably higher level, and the result was that the revenue work was not so high then as now. Moreover, in 1892 there was no Court of Criminal Appeal. There was only the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, but its work was very limited compared with the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal, to which substantially every criminal has the right to go if he is dissatisfied with his conviction. All these factors, increased population and differing social conditions, have increased vastly the number of disputes
requiring settlement in the King's Bench Division. Notwithstanding, we find ourselves with one more regular judge to-day and we shall have only three more judges if, by the present kind of emergency procedure, we get the number increased.
The wonder is not that there is delay which, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, is really a denial of justice, but that arrears are not greater than they are. It is very surprising. I attribute the fact that the arrears are not greater to several factors. First of all, the curtailment of the right to jury trial has shortened trials and judges are able to get their cases through more quickly. Secondly, and by no means unimportant, at assizes the judges are sitting absurdly long hours. I hope that those who are responsible for the administration of justice in this country will let it be known that it is not in the interests of justice or in the interests of overtaking arrears that absurdly long hours should be sat on circuit. I have had the experience regularly on assize of appearing in cases up to seven o'clock in the evening and on some occasions until nine o'clock. On at least two occasions in my circuit career I have been in court until 11 o'clock at night. Justice cannot be clone in those circumstances. No one who has had the experience of attempting to try a case can doubt the extreme tension of attention that is necessary on the part of a judge to sustain concentration from 10 o'clock in the morning until eight, nine or 10 o'clock at night. Such a thing is really impossible and it does riot conduce either to justice being done to those who are seeking justice or to the dignity of the Bench itself.
In addition to these causes there is a further matter to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, which must not be overlooked. One of the reasons why the arrears are not greater to-day is because a great deal of the litigation is dribbling away into the sand as it were. It is going to the arbitrators. It is going to people who can be fetched at the end of a telephone and who can undertake to sit within two days and give an award which is always expensively arrived at and is often not very satisfactory. The State loses because with the unrivalled opportunities for deciding cases by means of arbitrators those 'opportunities are much availed of when judges cannot be
got. It is clearly a penny wise and pound foolish policy to keep the Bench understaffed and to allow valuable and important work to find its way to arbitrators and, incidentally, to private enterprise. Not long ago, if I am correctly informed—I speak of rumour and I do not pledge myself to the strict accuracy of the report, although it is probably substantially accurate—there was a great case decided before an arbitrator, who happened to be an ex-judge, and the fee was certainly more than twice. that of a judge's salary for a year. That case was brought before this very learned and very excellent arbitrator because it was impossible to get that very important case tried in court in the time that the litigants required.
In June last, the busiest time of the legal year, I looked at the list for a fortnight and during that time only on one day did eight judges sit in London. On three days seven judges sat and on six days six judges sat. In July the experience was very much the same. Nine judges sat three times, eight judges three times, seven judges twice and six judges three times. In October the administration of justice, owing to our archaic method of dealing with this matter, had to await the sitting of Parliament. We were all called back from our holidays, very reluctantly surrendering a fortnight of the Long Vacation, to spend idle days in the insalubrious atmosphere of the Temple waiting for cases to be tried, cases which were on our table, because there were only four or five judges available for trial.
These facts make it perfectly clear that we ought not to be satisfied with the two judges concerned in the Address and that we ought to have more. I do not think that the strength of the King's Bench will be adequate until it reaches a regular level of 20 judges—the Lord Chief Justice and 19 other judges. Do not let the House come to the conclusion that by passing tins Address they are going to solve the problem of arrears. There is another congesting element. Last year Parliament adopted the recommendations of the Business of Courts Committee, presided over with so much assiduity by Lord Hanworth. We have by Parliamentary action abolished appeals to the Divisional Court from the county courts. Those appeals have been thrown into the
Court of Appeal. That means that all those cases that were previously tried by two judges will now be tried by three. The Divisional Court was a two-judge court and the Court of Appeal is a three-judge court. Moreover, we have limited the right of trial by jury, which means that more people will go to appeal than they would from the decision of a jury. In addition, by restricting the right of appeal to the House of Lords we shall have encouraged litigants to go to the Court of Appeal. In the past they would not have appealed because they would have been afraid to be taken higher to the House of Lords. These factors will throw on the Court of Appeal a great deal of extra work. That fact was recognised by the Business of Courts Committee because they said in their report that this would throw a burden upon the Court of Appeal which as at present constituted it is not able to bear.
How is that going to be met? It all links up and dovetails in with the proposal we are considering to-night. If we are to judge by what has happened this term this Motion will really do us no good. We are going to be given two judges but three are to be taken away to sit in the Court of Appeal. We shall be not better off but worse off than before. It is true that the Divisional Court work will not take up three judges in the Court of Appeal all the time but I am envisaging that it will be necessary probably for a third panel of the Court of Appeal to sit. We have been waiting for some time to know really what is going to happen with regard to the appointment of Lord Justices. There is a Motion on the Order Paper in my name which has been signed by practically every legal Member of the House, except some hon. Members opposite who were not unsympathetic but were unable to put their signatures to it for reasons one can understand. That Motion asks for the appointment of three more Lords Justices. Unless that is done the giving of these two extra judges and the placing of three judges in the Court of Appeal, in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Hanworth's Committee, will do not much more than give us half an extra judge in the King's Bench Division, and that is not nearly enough.
While supporting the Address, I hope that the Bill which was forecast yesterday will make provision for the appoint-
ment of extra Lord Justices in order to prevent the Government from taking away with one hand what they give with the other. In that respect may I say something that I hope will be received in the spirit in which it is said. For heaven's sake do not let us allow this matter of the appointment of judges or lord justices become a mere wrangle as to patronage. I am by no means satisfied that the holding up of this matter is not an issue between the Prime Minister's Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department as to which is to have the appointment of the Lord Justices. It would not be in order to go further into that matter except to say that my personal view is that the right body to appoint a person of such high judicial standing is the Lord Chancellor's Department and not a political department of the House of Commons. However that may be, it is nothing less than a sandal if what really needs to be done is held up because there is a quarrel between two Government departments, however eminent, as to which is to make the appointments.
The question of expense is surely quote absurd. According to an answer which I received from my right hon. Friend last July, the salaries of the judges in the King's Bench Division amounted to £49,468, with court fees of £250,000, so that every penny paid to the King's Bench judges was covered five times over by the court fees received. Even if we take into account every kind of administrative expense, the upkeep of the Law Courts, wages, salaries of staff and everything we still make a profit out of justice. That is perhaps not desirable but, at any rate, it entirely removes the criticism that it is an expensive matter to appoint judges. I welcome the announcement made by the Lord Chancellor yesterday of the appointment of a committee to inquire into whether the King's Bench Division should be supplemented by the appointment of the two additional judges beyond those we are discussing to-day.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there is ample room for reorganisation. What requires reorganisation more than anything else is the List. The old fetish that you must not keep a judge idle is more disastrous to litigants than any single element in our archaic
point of view. It is better that a. judge should be sitting idle with his feet up on the mantlepiece waiting for cases than that litigants should be standing in the corridors and coming back day after day because the judge has too many cases in his list and is not able to devote his time to the waiting litigants. Anyone who has practised in the courts knows what it means to be in the same list day after day coming back perhaps with half a dozen or 10 or 12 witnesses and then at 2 o'clock making the usual application to be released for the day. The case goes over to the next day and you may have to go through the same experience for a week. In an ideal state of affairs you would be able to telephone to the Law Courts and say
"I want a case in such a list tried next week. Can it be arranged?" The appointment of extra judges will only deal with the matter half way. Some steps will have to be taken to get back to the courts the arbitration eases which are now going elsewhere, and the matter of judicial salaries should not be overlooked. In 1880 there was a leading article in the "Times" of the 24th November, a short sentence from which 1 must quote:
The Bench has already ceased to be very attractive to the most successful lawyers at their best, and it would be unfortunate if second-rate or worn-out men were as a rule made judges.
That was the robust language of 1880, when Income Tax was much less than it is to-day and when a judicial salary meant a good deal more than it does to-day.

Major MILNER: Is the hon. and learned Member in order in discussing the appointment of additional judges? The Motion is to appoint judges to fill present vacancies.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is not the hon. and learned Member in order in making observations on the intentions of the Government as outlined by the Attorney-General?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I was listening carefully to the hon. and learned Member and I think he has gone far enough. I do not think his first observations with regard to salaries as affecting the question now before the House are out of order, but I think he should leave the subject there and not develop it further.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I bow at once to your ruling. The hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) will appreciate that the argument I was putting forward as to salaries is equally applicable to the present judges as it is to any additional judges. When the question was discussed in another place, one objection to the appointment of additional judges, and to the filling up of these vacancies, was the difficulty of finding people at the present rate of salaries. There is no doubt that cheapness can be overdone. Cheap justice is bad justice, and cheapness in the long run may be most expensive. While I welcome this Address it does not in my view solve the question, and it would be foolish for the House to come to the conclusion that, having passed the Address, it has gone any considerable way towards overtaking the arrears or reaching that satisfactory state of affairs when justice can be done speedily at the instance of the humblest. The House must be vigilant when the Government come forward with further proposals to deal with the situation thoroughly.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: We on this side are all good trade unionists, but our ranks are sadly depleted of legal trade unionists. We have only two members of the legal profession. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) asked that he should not take part in the discussion because he is not practising, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is now in North Wales doing excellent work. But we felt that some one should step into the breach and say, first, how delighted we are to find such eloquent support of State Socialism in legal affairs, just as the right hon. Gentleman for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is an excellent State Socialist in his administration of the Post Office. We only hope that he will be a little more generous to the workers later on than the Treasury now allows him to be. We are delighted to find what good trade unionists the legal fraternity are in this House. It was fine to hear the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) stick up for high wages and salaries. He said that cheap justice is bad justice. Cheap labour is bad labour under any
condition, but I should be sorry to think that justice really depended on how much we pay those who administer the law. That would be a very bad thing.
We support the proposal that a Committee should be appointed to consider the whole question of the administration of justice and the circuit system. Something similar was discussed in this House half a century ago. The law moves slowly, but the administration of the law seems to move even more slowly. I hope that such a Committee will be appointed, and I would ask the Attorney-General to represent to the Government that this is an occasion on which to apply the principle of an independent chairman. It would be an excellent thing if a good legal trade unionist or a business man was appointed as head of the Committee to investigate and inquire into the best system of reform which can be adopted. I may now be treading on dangerous ground. It has been said that justice ought not to cost as much as it does now. I think it is bad that people should have to pay very heavy sums for the best advice. You read of the sums on the briefs; and then there is the refresher. I have had some experience of it. I am not pleading for myself for by hook or crook I shall keep out of the hands of the gentry who administer the law, although I am not quite so sure of that now in view of the Bill which it is to be passed to-morrow.
The poorest person in the land ought to be able, in a matter of his defence or of putting his case forward, to have at his disposal the very best counsel it is possible to obtain. That can only be done through the State. It cannot be done by asking counsel to cut down their trade union or other rates to a point which is not right. I do think that the disparities and inequalities in the remuneration of the learned gentlemen who plead for us in the courts ought to be dealt with. They all seem to me to be a little hungry on occasion. All I am pleading for is that the commission or committee which the Government are considering the advisability of appointing shall be composed of people some of whom are lawyers but some of whom are people who have to go to law or whose friends may have to go to law, and that presiding over that commission there should not be a judge or a legal person
but what is known as an independent chairman. We should not dream of opposing the proposal, put forward as it has been, and, if the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham will allow me to say so, we are glad to welcome him into the ranks of good State Socialists and as a really sound defender of good trade union principles.

8.27 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I rise to support the Motion most whole-heartedly. I do so not as a trade unionist at all, and I shall explain why. Anyone who has had experience of the other branch of the profession—other than the barristers—and has come into contact day by day with the poorest of the poor, must realise that at the present time very grave injustice is being done to them. Solicitors take a very large number of these poor people's cases and a considerable number of them do not get a single sixpence for it. The greatest injustice is being done to those poor people who ask for justice and are kept waiting. To them the situation is very serious indeed. I am not putting the matter from the point of view of a trade unionist at all, but from the point of view of the denial of justice to the poorest people who are waiting for relief. As has been pointed out, on the question of the appeals from the County Courts not only are you not doing anything to reduce arrears, but you are making matters worse by stating that a certain number of appeals shall be tried
by three judges instead of two. The result is extremely serious, in that as many cases cannot he tried.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The sum of £9,000 is to be spent, I understand. I would put these questions to the Attorney-General: Has the number of litigants grown since 1931? If so, has there been any examination of the causes of the increase? Has is been because there is something wrong in our law and administration, and does this cause people to go to court oftener than they went before? If so, why is not an attempt made to deal with the source of the trouble? Amendment of the laws could prevent these things happening.
My second point is to note the remarkable way in which we see a class fighting.
It seems to me that every lawyer in the House wants to have a "do" at this, and so supports the appointment of judges. One wonders whether it is for the purpose of looking after their own particular interests. It appears to me that that has something to do with it. I would give lawyers a word of advice, if I may, though it may be taken in the wrong way. When they are presenting a case in court, I think they should cut off a lot of their arguments. Whenever I go to a law court it seems to me that most of the lawyers think that the longer they talk the better impression they will make on the judges. I am speaking from some experience, because I am on a local bench of magistrates. When we magistrates look through the cases we say to ourselves, "Is there any lawyer on this case, because if there is we shall have to stop a much longer time than would otherwise be necessary." That is a word of' warning to the lawyers. Most of them become judges at some time, and I am sure that when they get on the bench they will say to themselves, "I have done that before, but is counsel not a silly chap to try to tell me things I have already seen."
The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) waxed very eloquent about the amount of overtime that judges have to work. I wonder whether he has ever thought about other people working overtime. From time to time we have agitated about overtime in the mines, but from hon. Members on the other side of the House we never seem to get much help. They simply say, "If a job has to be done why don't the men stop at it?" In the law courts the judge or lawyer starts at 10 o'clock in the morning and finishes at four sometimes. At 12.30 judge and lawyers begin to look at the clock, and at one o'clock there is a stop till 2.30, and at four o'clock, or five at the latest, it is stated that no other case can be taken that day. There may be a rare occasion when a case is not finished and the court goes on longer.
I do not want the judges to be compelled to work overtime but I hope that those who are stressing the point about overtime in the case of the judges will have some regard for those in a lower sphere of life who are compelled to work overtime. I hope that as a result of this
discussion those who are now arguing for the appointment of additional judges to clear up arrears of legal work will, on other occasions, show the same regard for other people in other occupations. I do not raise any objection to the appointment of the judges. I would not like to think that litigants were being kept waiting for months and months to have their cases heard. That is wrong. I think it is the hardest thing of all for a litigant that he should be kept in suspense. The waiting period is the worst for a litigant, and if this proposal will help to clear up the legal arrears I am in sympathy with it. But I hope that those who fight so keenly for their class in regard to this matter, will show some sympathy for our people when the occasion arises.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I hope the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) will acquit me of any desire to promote the interest of any class. I do not rise for that purpose but in order to make a few observations on this Motion—which I am not opposing—in the hope that from this interesting discussion there may be consequences which will improve the administration of justice. Motions of this sort have been moved again and again over a long period, and the country has been told that there is an accumulation of cases and that these Motions are directed to dealing with that condition of affairs. What the country wants to be assured of is that when the House responds to the invitation of the Government to deal with the accumulation of arrears in the High Court, the causes of that accumulation will not be allowed to continue. The Attorney-General has intimated that it is intended in the next Session to proceed with further legislation and also to inquire into the conduct of business in the King's Bench Division. I propose to make two practical suggestions. I speak from a very long experience of these matters and I think it will be found on inquiry into the scope of the business in the King's Bench Division that there are two special reasons for the accumulation of arrears.
First, the assize system has not been curtailed as much as it might have been in recent years. Power has been taken to remit cases from one county to another if the state of business otherwise in the first county does not require the calling
of assizes, but I was astonished the other day to read a letter in the
"Times" signed "Recorder," stating that one of the reasons for this accumulation of business at assizes is that cases which might be committed to Quarter Sessions, instead of being so committed are held over for assizes. I hope that if the promised inquiry takes place it will cover this aspect of the matter. Every practical man acquainted with the matter knows that the first reason for the accumulation of cases in the King's Bench Division is the withdrawal of judges from their duties in the King's Bench Division to conduct assizes. If it is found that the assize lists are being unduly increased by a failure to send suitable cases to quarter session, attention might be given to the matter with the result of diminishing this accumulation in the King's Bench.
My second suggestion is this. The King's Bench Division at this moment is being flooded with cases which could quite properly be tried elsewhere. There are many cases in the King's Bench, particularly running down cases, which could easily be tried in the county courts, and when this review of the work of the King's Bench is undertaken, I hope that those who are responsible for it will consider whether there are not many civil causes which could be adequately tried outside the High Court, and particularly in the county courts. There is a further line of treatment. Why should not some of these cases be sent to the official referees? Why should all these small cases accumulate for the attention of one of His Majesty's judges?

Mr. McKEAG: Surely my hon. and learned Friend is not advocating that additional work should be thrown on the county court judges.

Mr. KNIGHT: On a proper occasion I would be prepared to argue that. Probably the question might arise of the additional work in county courts but what I am reminding the House of at the moment is that this accumulation in the King's Bench is at present unnecessarily increased by retaining in that division cases which could be adequately tried elsewhere. Further, may I say that I have been astounded to see the statement in the newspapers and to hear it repeated here, that His Majesty's Government find difficulty in obtaining the ser-
vices for the judicial bench of practitioners at the Bar. I am forced to say this. It is a position I have never sought and never intend to seek, but I say that the biggest privilege which could he offered to a member of the Bar, is the duty of serving King and country on the judicial bench, and I think it is a great discredit to the Bar of England that such a suggestion as I have mentioned should find any countenance in the Press or in this House. It is doing a serious injustice to many capable members of the Bar who could fill these positions. I speak as one who has served at the Bar of England with all the present judges and I say that there are many capable men at the Bar who would gladly do this service if they were asked to do it. The suggestion that members of the Bar hold back from it in order to fill their own pockets and that they are not willing to serve the State on the judicial bench is a discredit to those who make it, and is a severe comment and an unjust comment on the Bar of England.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I do not wish it to be thought that I subscribe to all the views which have been expressed by the various hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken on the opposite side of the House, but I wish to take this opportunity of adding my voice to the statements already made by certain hon. Members that the present suggested appointment of two judges to the King's Bench Division to fill these vacancies is entirely inadequate, and does not meet the requirements of the present position in the least degree. This is a matter which I have raised on more than one occasion in this House, and I think I can claim to speak perhaps a little more feelingly than my hon. and learned Friends opposite, because, as a member of the other branch of the legal profession, I have to come into more immediate touch with disgruntled litigants and witnesses who are tired and sick to death of waiting in the various courts for their cases to come up.

Mr. KNIGHT: It so happens that on this very day I have been one of the victims of this very system. I have been waiting for a trial in the High Court since last January.

Mr. McKEAG: So long ago as in November of 1932 I addressed a question to the learned Attorney-General in regard to the congestion of business at the Newcastle Assizes, and my question raised a storm of supplementary questions from all parts of the House, calling upon the Attorney-General to ensure that something should be done in the way of providing additional judges. His final answer was this:
I shall be glad to take note of the opinion of the House on that question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1932; col. 639, Vol. 272.]
But nothing has been done in the last two years to alleviate the position. Today I had a question on the Order Paper to the learned Attorney-General in regard to this matter, and perhaps it may be of some little help and interest if I read that question, because it was not reached, owing to the very large number of questions on the Paper. I asked the Attorney-General
if he is aware that, instead of the customary two judges, a commissioner alone has been sent to take the assizes at Newcastle-upon-Tyne; that, in view of the heavy business, a second court, presided over by one of the leaders on the North-Eastern Circuit, has had to be hurriedly convened to relieve the congestion; and whether he will take steps to ensure that in future two judges, or at least one judge and a commissioner, arc allocated to these assizes?
I have been given an answer to the effect that a Resolution will be moved in this House with a view to filling these vacancies, but I claim that this does not meet the position, arid I would like to bring it more forcibly home to the learned Attorney-General by giving some details from a letter which I have only to-day received from Newcastle. The letter refers to congestion at the Assizes which are now proceeding there, and goes on to say:
Mr. Arthur Morley, K.C., was sitting as an additional judge yesterday, and disposed of two criminal cases, and, in spite of the fact that it was stated at 4.30 p.m. yesterday that he would not be able to sit to-day he sat again to-day, and is dealing with a City case. The Commissioner"—
who, I may say, is performing his duties there in an excellent fashion—
is taking a manslaughter case to-day, and it is expected that it will finish this evening. If not, he will have to finish it to-morrow but to-morrow.… is sitting as a judge to try the West Wylam motor man-
slaughter case, to enable the Commissioner to start on the civil list. Divorce has been fixed for Saturday"—
I think my hon. Friend above the Gangway said something about overtime. Well, they are sitting on Saturday at Newcastle-upon-Tyne during this Assize—
which leaves to-morrow (or such part of to-morrow as may not be taken up with the manslaughter case if it has not been finished to-day) and Friday only for civil work. The special jury action is expected to last at least a day and a half; there are then two common jury actions, and, whilst in the printed list there are shown to be six non-jury actions, there are, in fact, seven, another case not appearing in the printed list having been permitted to be entered by special leave in London. Even if the manslaughter trial finishes to-day, it would appear improbable that more than two civil actions, all told, will be dealt with by the time the Assizes are due to close on Saturday. Everybody here is hoping that you will raise the matter as one of great public importance, and I know that all the counsel and solicitors interested in Assize work will be grateful to you if you do anything to try to draw attention to this scandalous state of affairs.
I hope I have said sufficient by reading this letter to direct still further the attention of the Attorney-General to a very serious state of affairs which should not be permitted to continue. It is a state of affairs which, in my judgment, cannot possibly be remedied merely by the appointment of these two judges to fill these vacancies, and I ask that something further should be done. After all, there is no hesitation on the part of this House in setting up new departments costing millions of public money, and I cannot understand this niggardly attitude towards the appointment of additional judges. After all, the administration of
justice in this country is too vitally important a matter to be subjected to misguided and unwise economy.

8.53 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: So many topics have been mentioned that I should have to survey the whole legal world, from China to Peru, to answer them all. They have included fees of counsel, length of counsels' speeches, judges' salaries, circuits, arbitrations, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me to call the Govern-
ment's attention to his opinion, which I respectfully say a great many other people share, that the chairman of the proposed Committee of Inquiry should be an independent person, by which I understand he intends a layman, who will bring a fresh outlook on the question. I believe that to be the opinion of my Noble Friend, but his attention will be called to the right hon. Gentleman's views. Then an hon. Member behind him asked a question as to the amount of new litigation. As a matter of fact, the litigation in 1933, if it may be judged from the number of writs and other originating proceedings, was a good deal less than it was in the years 1930 and 1931. In round figures, 60,000 writs were issued in 1930, in 1932 59,000, and that fell in 1933 to 53,000, so that, in spite of the diminution in the number of writs, the accumulations have grown even with the number of judges at their proper level until the two vacancies now in question occurred.
I think I need hardly trouble the House with the other questions that have been raised, because, strictly speaking, although they were no doubt in order, they were relevant not to this Motion, but, as I said in my opening observations, to the Motion to be proposed when the Second Reading of the Bill to which I referred came before the House. Whether all the things that were said were accurate or well founded I will not stop to discuss now, but there will be ample opportunity to discuss those matters when the Bill comes before the House. All that I am asking the House to do now is to fill the two vacancies, and I respectfully think there can be no disagreement in any quarter of the House with that proposal.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that two vacancies in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will he graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Continuance of Acts in Schedule), and 2 (Short title and application to orthern Ireland), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 21 to 24.
We are now dealing with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is an annual proposal. The Committee is very highly honoured just now by the presence of the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council, and we welcome their presence on this very small Bill. I notice that the Postmaster-General is also in his place, although the telephones are still calling at a shilling a time. The Amendment may not appear very important, but we on these Benches thought we ought to raise this issue. The Amendment proposes to exclude Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, which is continued by this Bill. This Act was passed in 1919 soon after the close of the War, when the hatred of the alien and the foreigner still lurked in the minds of our people. The Section of the Act which is continued carries forward provisions of the Aliens Act, 1914, which were passed just after the beginning of the War, when passions were high and when aliens from any country were anathema. When these provisions were enacted there was a different state of affairs from anything that had existed in this country for a decade or so before, and it was obvious to everybody that the Government of the day would have to keep their eyes especially on undesirable aliens.
It is now 16 years since the War ended, and our country has followed the activities of every Government in the world in keeping out the foreigner as far as they can. Indeed, the movements of people from one country to another are safeguarded and restricted, and in some cases prohibited. The Amendment raises two specific points, and I am moving it in
order to find out the mind of the Government on the administration of the aliens law and especially of this Section. It is known, of course, that an alien cannot of his own right come into this country. He may be prohibited from landing here, and when he has landed his movements are watched, and he must report to the police authorities. Indeed, the power of the Home Office since these Orders were established is very important. The Home Office may naturalise an alien after so many years' residence in this country or it may decline to naturalise him. The Home Office may, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, admit an alien workman to be employed in this country under a sort of licence, and a large number of such workmen are admitted every year. This is a very delicate task to handle at the Home Office and I am not going to dwell unduly upon it, except to say that I have never been able to understand how alien workmen from Germany, France, Belgium or elsewhere may not come here without certain conditions being laid down, the conditions on the whole being such that the foreign workman does not degrade the conditions of work of our people, while something altogether different happens when the foreign employer comes here.
This is a point to which I want to direct the attention of the Government. Although this may not appear to be a very large issue, I trust the Prime Minister will take note of one thing that is happening in this connection. I have raised this issue in the House more than once, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour knows what I am talking about. The Government have, rightly or wrongly, induced foreign employers to come to our shores to establish factories to manufacture commodities that were usually manufactured by our own people. I am not going to argue 110W as to the rights and wrongs of admitting these foreign manufacturers. The Government have been delighted on more than one occasion to declare that hundreds of factories have been opened in this country by foreign employers. What I am about to say can be vouched for and substantiated. Some of these alien employers, who have come here with permits of the Home Office, without probably a consultation with the Ministry of Labour, have, in establishing factories and employing our own
workpeople, brought the psychology of the foreign employer with them. They have in more than one instance degraded the conditions of employment in the district where the factories have been established.
Take the town of Mossley, in Lancashire, where the depression has been very terrible indeed. In that comparatively small town there is a French firm carrying on a textile trade, employing 200 or 300 workpeople, and the wages and conditions in that factory are lower than anything which the textile industry in Lancashire has experienced for a decade or so. Married women are working 52 hours a week for 15s. 3d. If conditions are to be laid down dealing with foreign workmen engaged by British employers in this country, there ought to be conditions for foreign capitalists who come within our shores, so that they shall not degrade the standard of life of our own workpeople. That is really the one point I wished to raise, but I would like to mention one other matter. As I have said, the task of the Home Office in dealing with aliens is a very delicate one —I have always thought that ought to be acknowledged—but there is a feeling that it is easier for a foreign monarch to come here than a political refugee, say a Socialist from Austria or Germany. I am not going to say that our Governments have not, on the whole, behaved fairly towards these people who have been persecuted abroad, but I put forward the plea that the Home Office shall not make it more difficult for a man who has been persecuted in some dictatorial country abroad to enter this country than it is for a monarch who has been sent away by his own people. I wish to add that it will depend upon the reply of the hon. and gallant Member whether we press this Amendment to a Division.

9.8 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I am glad to have the opportunity of supplementing the inquiries made by my hon. Friend as to the administration by the Home Office of these provisions of the Aliens Order. During the past 18 months or so I have come into contact to a considerable extent with those who have sought refuge from Germany in this country, and I desire at once to pay my tribute to the Home Office for the way in which, speaking broadly, they have received those unfortunate refugees, most of whom are
my co-religionists, for I am myself a Jew. I may say, and I believe that the Secretary of State will remember the occasion, that I, with a number of my friends who are members of the British Jewish community, gave an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Government, that no German Jew admitted to this country should fall as a charge upon public funds. That formidable obligation which we undertook has, as far as my knowledge goes, been fully implemented, and I beg leave to say it will continue to be implemented. Those who have sought refuge here from Germany have come from the class of employers and also from the class of employés. It is right that I should say, for my experience has not been small in dealing with these matters, that as regards the Home Office, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour applications have been dealt with with courtesy, with promptitude and with the spirit of good will traditionally associated with this country in the case of refugees. Less than that I could not say; more than that the representatives of the Government will not wish me to say on this occasion.
I think I understand the principle upon which the Government proceed in admitting the particular class of refugees to which alone I will confine myself in my observations this evening, but there are one or two classes of case upon which I should like to have a little further information. In the case of those who come to this country prepared and anxious to invest capital, in starting new enterprises no difficulty arises, though I am glad to think that—in those cases, at least, with which I have come into contact with the Home Office—the condition has been imposed, and readily accepted, that trade union conditions shall apply to those taken into employment, whether British subjects or aliens. The number of alien workmen admitted to this country is, of course, relatively small, arid mostly confined to those with special technical knowledge who are in a position to instruct British workmen in new industries or in new methods adapted to old industries. The amount of employment given in this country to British people by refugees from Germany is not inconsiderable. I have not the precise figures in front of me, though I hope shortly to have collected them, as far as
a private person can do so. I do not think that even the Minister has accurate figures, because it is very difficult to obtain a record. I give him the assurance that as soon as figures are available, so far as I have facilities for obtaining them—and I have some facilities—I will furnish them to the Home Office.
New industries have been started in this country—industries which hitherto had not been operated here at all. I know of a case where a factory has been started to make toys of a, class which had never been manufactured in this country, and in that particular factory there are
some 180 or 200 British employees. I think it is satisfactory to learn that the action of the Department in admitting these refugees from Germany has had, is having and will have the effect of causing a considerable accretion of labour in this country, and make its contribution, in some small measure, to the solution of the problem of unemployment.
But, as I indicated a moment ago, there is a special class of case about which I feel some difficulty, and that is the class of professional men. I am thinking of a case—I believe my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recognise it—of a medical man, of world wide reputation, a man who is acknowledged by the profession in this country to be the leading man in Europe in his particular line and to have been the pioneer in it. Yet I know not for what reason the Home Office has found itself so far unable to grant him the permission which he has sought to practise in this country upon the same terms and conditions as would be applicable to any other person not holding a British medical degree. The position of those who come from Germany to this country qualified as medical practitioners or surgeons is one of extreme difficulty, and I should like to know what principle the Home Office 'is laying down for dealing with cases of that kind. The case of the lawyer, which I understand fully, presents far greater difficulties. Medical knowledge is universal, but legal knowledge is highly technical and confined to a knowledge of the law of this country. So much on the question of the admission to this country of aliens.
I wish to ask a question with regard to deportation. I am not going to raise any general question as to deportation,
but I desire to direct the attention of the spokesman representing the Government to a question of procedure. Under the Aliens Order the Secretary of State has the right to make an order for the deportation of an alien for any reason which may seem fit to him or which is conducive, I think the phrase is, to the public welfare. I am not quarrelling with, or laying any stress upon that phrase. There was a good deal of feeling some time ago with regard to the manner in which in certain cases that right had been exercised. On the 11th February, 1932, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who was then Home Secretary, made the following announcement in the House in answer to a question. He said:
It is thought desirable that in certain types of case special provision should be made to enable representations against such an order"—
that is the deportation order—
to be considered, and to allow evidence to be heard. I propose, therefore, to set up an advisory committee."—IOFFIciAL REPORT, 11th February, 1932, col. 1008, Vol. 261.]
The Advisory Committee was set up, and it has functioned. I think that no one will refuse the tribute which I should wish to pay to the eminent public service rendered, I believe in a purely honorary capacity, by the learned Chairman of the committee and his colleagues upon it. They are performing a useful and valuable public service, and I am anxious to safeguard myself against any suggestion that in what I say I am making any attack upon, or criticism of, the committee as regards either its personnel or anything else. I have a great regard for the services which the members of the committee are rendering and for the public spirit which inspires them. What I am troubled about is the procedure and the conditions under which the committee operates. When the announcement was made in the House of Commons by the former Home Secretary, it was considered that the committee would act, so to speak, in a judicial capacity. I do not mean that they were to be judges. It was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen that they were to be an advisory committee, a committee to advise the Home Secretary. When it was stated that the committee was to be set up in order to enable representations to be considered and evidence to be heard, it was generally
understood that the committee would act, broadly speaking, in a judicial capacity and spirit.
What is the actual procedure? It is something about which I do not think that there will be any dispute between the Under-Secretary and myself. The Advisory Committee does not profess to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. When an applicant comes before the Deportation Advisory Committee on the invitation of the Home Office it is the duty of that committee to hear the representations which the alien wishes to place before it. The alien is not informed beforehand of the grounds upon which it is proposed to make the deportation. He presents himself, by his counsel, it may be, to the Deportation Advisory Committee, without any prior information of the charges to be made against him. He is therefore from the beginning in a position of some difficulty. He does not know the charges which he has to meet. The evidence which is heard by the committee is not on oath. It is not even first-hand evidence; it is very often mere hearsay evidence. The committee—and this is the point to which I attach particular importance—in the conduct of its proceedings is not even limited to a consideration of the evidence which is presented to it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am loath to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not think that any of the statements which he is now making are in order. The effect of this Section which we are seeking to maintain in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is the origin of the authority of the Secretary of State for administering the Aliens Act, but I think that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now raising is an actual instance of the administration of the Act as apart from whether or not the Secretary of State should be granted the power to administer it. I submit that the point is one to be raised on the Home Office Vote in due course and not to-night. If the hon. and gallant Member is allowed to continue, I hope that I may be allowed similar indulgence to reply.

The CHAIRMAN: The particular point is one which I was trying to solve when it was raised. Unfortunately I have not before me at the moment the Act in question, but it will be coming shortly. If what the hon. and gallant Gentleman
has said is correct, which I have every reason to believe is the case, then the particular administration, i.e., the administration to which the hon. and gallant Member is now addressing himself, does go beyond the scope of the Bill.

Major NATHAN: Naturally, I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but may I ask you for your guidance in this matter? I am asking questions quite frankly as to the administration of the board, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have put my case quite fairly. I am not making attacks upon him or anything of that kind. In fact, I wish to pay a certain tribute to his Department. I am frankly dealing with the question of the administration. If I am out of order, I should hope to put myself in order by suggesting that if the answer to the point which I have put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be unsatisfactory, then there would be every reason to press upon the House the withdrawal from the right hon. Gentleman of those powers given to him by Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. I will not pursue the matter, Sir Dennis, until I have received your Ruling. It is a point not without difficulty.

9.26 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The position as I understand it is this. Under Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, my right hon. Friend has power to deal with the question of aliens, but the effective authority is an Order in Council issued as a result of those powers. How the powers under the Order in Council are administered is quite a different question from whether he should or should not have the powers themselves. We are discussing now the grant of the powers. If the Amendment were carried, and there were no powers, the whole structure of aliens administration would disappear. That is quite a different thing from raising various points on the administration. I am not trying to get out of answering any of the questions put to me, but I only wish to keep the Debate in such a form that I may be allowed to answer it.

9.27 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the other hon. Gentlemen for the way in which they have put the matter. The
hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that the administration of a particular piece of legislation which it is proposed to continue is a proper matter to discuss in discussing the item in the Schedule. But what I rather gathered was the case and from what the Under-Secretary has said is the case, is that this particular matter which the hon. Gentleman was discussing was not a matter of administration under this particular Measure which it is proposed to continue. It is administration under an Order in Council which may derive its authority from this particular Act, but the administration of which is of a kind not affected by whether this particular item in the Schedule is continued in force or not.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not almost impossible to say whether the Government should still have power to issue these orders unless we find out whether the use of these powers by the Government is a proper use of their powers?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is capable of alleging a reason for discussing almost any matter in any Debate; and it is the difficult task of the Chair to decide when to stop a discussion. I think I must ask the hon. Member to take that as my answer and to take the broad lines of the ruling I have given—that while it is in order on an item in this Schedule to discuss the administration of the particular piece of legislation referred to, it is not in order to discuss the administration of, as in this case, Orders in Council, which would not be affected by whether this particular piece of legislation was or was not kept alive by the Expiring Laws Bill.

9.29 p.m.

Major NATHAN: You have the advantage of me, Sir Dennis, in having the Statute before you. I was under the impression that the order is one made by the Secretary of State—a statutory Order and not an Order in Council. I speak subject to correction, as I have not the Statute before me, but I believe the Order is an Order made under this Section 1, and not an Order in Council. If you have the Statute before you, might I ask you to tell me whether I am right or not?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Aliens Order, 1920, which is the actual administration Order under which the Secretary of State administers is headed "Alien; the Aliens Order, 1920, being an Order in Council made. …"

Major NATHAN: Then I will not pursue that. On that point you, Sir Dennis, have been good enough to rule and I readily submit to your ruling. If it is out of order I will leave the matter of administration and the conduct of the Deportation Advisory Committee to another and more suitable occasion. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that I do not willingly introduce into this Debate a matter which ought properly to belong to a Debate on some other subject, but I hope he will take this as notice that on the appropriate occasion I shall examine this matter more fully and hope to receive from him a reply.

9.32 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am sorry that I had to intervene, but there was a danger if we developed this subject too far that we should get into questions which were obviously outside the scope of this particular Section of the Expirring Laws Continuance Bill. In fact I am not quite sure that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was not in some of the questions he raised also sailing a little near the wind. The hon. Gentleman opposite started by telling us that the origin of the Section of the Act of 1919 dated back to the passions engendered in the War, when foreigners were anathema. That is not quite a correct reading of the matter. When the original Act came into force it had not anything to do with the passions of the War, but all the alien restrictions during the period of the War were imposed for the military security of the realm. It was not a question of passions but a question of security. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that we are now 16 years from the War and that the motives which then actuated us are not necessarily suitable motives to-day. Yet there is a very strong case for the continuance of aliens administration, not for the military but for the economic safety of the realm.
The hon. Gentleman has only to reflect for one moment, and I am sure that he
and the Committee will agree. Suppose that there was no Aliens Order. Suppose that we removed this Section which gives my right hon. Friend power to administer the whole question of aliens in this country—not only their admission but their registration when here and their possible deportation—and that he was deprived of that power altogether. Surely the hon. Gentleman and everybody else must realise what the result of that would be. When they compare the state of this country with the rest of Europe, when they consider the political and economic disturbances elsewhere, when they compare with our situation the level of unemployment in other countries, do they not see that the automatic result would be an enormous flood of foreign work-people into this country? That is a situation which, though he may move to delete this Section from the Schedule, the hon. Member would never consider as desirable for one moment. That is the justification for asking the House to continue this Section in the Schedule.
The hon. Gentleman, of course, realised that, because he dealt with the question of the alien worker. He pointed out that a man or woman coming to work in this country requires to receive a Ministry of Labour permit. My right hon. Friend works in close co-operation with his colleague the Minister of Labour, and comparatively few foreign workpeople come: into this country at all. Before they are allowed to come, they have to prove a good many things. They have to prove that they are not going to jeopardise the employment of British workpeople; they have to show to the satisfaction of the Minister of Labour—who, of course, is primarily responsible in connection with that aspect of the question—that, if they do come over here, they are coming in order to train British workmen in some job which is perhaps a new one, or has been brought over as the result of new processes which are going to be worked in this country; or they have to show that their mere presence in that particular job means—and I may tell the hon. Gentleman that very great care is taken on this point—that suitable British persons cannot be found to do the job. Surely the Labour party are not prepared to see all that swept aside by excluding this item from the Schedule to the Bill.
That situation would be an impossible one from their point of view, not to men-
tion that of anybody else. It would be an impossible situation from the point of view of organised labour if you had a tremendous flood of workpeople from, not to specify more particularly, the East of Europe, coming over here and competing in our market, in view of the lower personal standard of a great many people in other parts of Europe. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is really no case for the deletion of this provision. It is not a question of foreigners being anathema, or of war passions, but we have to look at this question from the point of view of employment and the possible reactions of the admission of a very large number of foreign workpeople. It is quite a different question if you talk about the tourist traffic, or about people coming into this country in order to make themselves acquainted with our system of government and culture, or coming here as students and the like; but from the point of view of employment, with which the hon. Member was dealing particularly, it would be outrageous, to put it mildly, to consider relaxing entirely the administration of the Aliens Act. There is also the question of the foreign employer of labour. I am afraid that, on the particular question which he raised in that connection, he will have to refer to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour—

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: That is exactly the point that I wanted to raise. When the Home Office gives a final permit for a foreign workman to land, it is understood that nothing at all that he does in this country will degrade the conditions of employment of the workpeople around him. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is not possible to lay down the same sort of conditions in the case of capitalists from abroad who come here to establish factories, when it is known that, after they have come here, they have degraded the conditions of employment of our own people in this country?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I think the short answer would be that they have not. There is the question how foreign manufacturers who come here to set up factories in this country are to be dealt with. Surely, again from the point of view of the employment of our people, they should be dealt with as sympathetically as possible, because their goods are
going to be produced by people receiving wages here, and, therefore, on the broader grounds, it is desirable to attract as many as possible of them here. That, of course, has occurred during the last two or three years, partly through the setting up of the tariffs and partly owing to the antagonism in Germany to the Jewish employer, who has found it possible and profitable to come to this country and make his goods here instead of there. There is, of course, the very remarkable fact that during the last year or two the centre of the fur trade of the world has been, practically speaking, transferred from Leipzig to London, to the very great advantage, not only of the business community, but also of the workpeople in that trade. To-day London is the centre of the fur trade. All these people have been attracted here through our making it possible for the foreign employer of labour to come here. But, again, it is not exactly and entirely the province of my right hon. Friend to deal with that; he actually acts in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade as to the desirability of that practice being carried on and extended.
As regards the question whether any conditions as to wages could be laid upon a prospective employer of labour coming into this country to set up a factory, my answer would be that such conditions as regards wages are not laid upon a British manufacturer setting up a new factory, and I do not see how any system could be devised under which that could reasonably be done. After all, when factories are opened here, the workpeople employed have a certain number of ways of making their grievances known, whether in this House, or through their own organisations, or to their own employers, and I would not like to carry the matter any further than that, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman, though I do not think it is exactly what he had in mind. We do, as a matter of ordinary administrative duty, take very great care, in the case of domestic servants coining to this country, to see that the wages offered to them are on a reasonable basis, and not to allow foreign servants to come in otherwise; but that is quite a different question from the one which the hon. Gentleman raised. I hope that I have cleared up the point. If there are any specific cases with regard to any specific fac-
tories, I shall be very glad to talk the matter with him at any time, but I do not see any possibility of being able to lay down the type of conditions which he mentioned.
The second and entirely different point which the hon. Gentleman made—he did not develop it at length, because I think he realised that perhaps he was on somewhat difficult ground—was as to the alleged differentiation in the class of refugees. I do not want to be offensive to anybody in any way, and I will try to pick my words. The hon. Gentleman spoke of monarchs on the one side and Socialists on the other, and perhaps I might just answer what I am pretty sure he had in mind by explaining to him what our system of administration involves. It involves the whole question of the right of asylum, and the right of asylum was defined in a classic instance by Mr. Clynes when this very question was raised during the Labour Government's period of office. The problem was whether Mr. Trotsky should be allowed to come into this country or not, and I cannot hope to put in better language the answer to the problem. It states so clearly the practice, not only of my right hon. Friend but of every Home Secretary since the Orders were first promulgated and the Act was passed, that at the present moment it is worth while reminding the Committee of what Mr. Clynes said. Dealing with the right of asylum, Mr. Clynes said this:
 In regard to what is called the right of asylum,' this country has the right to grant asylum to any person whom it thinks fit to admit as a political refugee.
I would say in passing that that, of course, is part of the Sovereign rights of any country, not of this country more than any other. It is for any country to decide for itself whether it shall grant the right of asylum to political refugees. Mr. Clynes went on to say:
On the other hand, no alien has the right to claim admission to this country.
The right of asylum is the right of a Sovereign State to accept from other countries political refugees, but the right of asylum is not a right of any individual person to demand admission into a particular country. Mr. Clynes continued:
On the other hand, no alien has the right to claim admission to this country if it would be contrary to the interests of this country to receive him. There are no
special regulations on the subject."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1929; col. 603, Vol. 230.]
I do not know that I need bother the Committee with the reasons why Mr. Clynes thought it undesirable for that individual to come here, though they will find it stated in column 603. That is what is meant by the right of asylum. Obviously, the Secretary of State has a good many considerations to keep in mind. He is ultimately responsible to this House and the country for the maintenance of order, but, when it comes to individual refugees, he is not concerned with their political views any more than with their religious views. What he is concerned with is whether the admission of a particular refugee might have one of two effects, one, that by his presence, Or his activities after he arrives, he might cause trouble to the internal administration of the country or, equally important, after being admitted here he would use this country as a basis for carrying on undesirable activities with regard possibly to his native land or possibly to some other country. The Secretary of State, therefore, has to consider very carefully each case when it is a question of political views which are known to be extremist, but the paramount consideration is the interests of this country. They override any claims which any individual refugee, however hard pressed, might like to make. We have a great many refugees. An hon. Member opposite has paid a tribute to the fact that a large number of German refugees have been admitted in the last few years. I should like to say, in passing, how much we welcome the co-operation of the hon. Gentleman and his committee in assisting us with this very difficult question. Plenty of them come here, but the right of admitting or refusing any particular refugee does not turn on whether he is a Socialist or a monarch. The whole question that my right hon. Friend has to solve is whether his presence here would or would not be in the interests of this country.

9.48 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: May I make clear my opinion on the point of Order that was discussed a few minutes ago? The rule, as I understand it, in its main principle is clear. It is that, in so far as any legislation is proposed to be continued, the administration of that legislation is a
proper subject of discussion as influencing the Committee or the House as to whether that particular piece of Statute law should be continued or not. But the application of it is the point which really arises now, and I think I am right in my reading of this Statute that the particular matters of administration to which the Under-Secretary referred are matters of administration under a particular Order-in-Council which would not cease to have effect if this particular legislation were not continued. I have not seen the Order-in-Council, but it appears to me that Orders-in-Council can be made under the Act of 1914—the operation of which is continued by the Act of 1919—and that such Orders-in-Council can 'be so made that they would not necessarily come to an end if this particular Section were not continued by this particular Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If, on the other hand, the continued validity of that Order-in-Council depends upon the continuance in force of this particular item in the Schedule, it is a proper subject for discussion.

Mr. JANNER: May I ask you, Sir, whether, in view of the fact that the Expiring Laws Continuance Act is continuing the only Act which enables these particular Orders-in-Council to be made, the point raised with regard to administration would not be in order? The point that was raised is an important one and the matter of inquiry is one which, I am sure, the Under-Secretary will be willing to answer, and many of us would like to know the answer. If it can be dealt with, I should like your Ruling on the point so that we may deal with it.

The CHAIRMAN: I have not the Order before me, but, according to the last information that I have received, it would come to an end if this particular Section of the Act of 1919 were not continued. According to the view that I have already expressed, if that be the case the administration of that Order is a proper subject for discussion now, but, if anyone wishes to discuss it, he must satisfy me that that test applies to it, or at least I should stop him if I found that objections were raised on good grounds on the lines of the Ruling that I have just given.

Major NATHAN: I am in a little difficulty, because I brought my observations
to a conclusion on the footing of the Ruling which, without having an opportunity of considering all the data, you had given. I now understand that, having had an opportunity of considering the position more fully, a position of great difficulty, you are of opinion that I should have been in order had I continued to address the Committee upon that subject. I wish to ask you whether I should now be in order or whether the Committee would extend its indulgence and permit me, if I am not in order, co resume the remarks that I was making.

The CHAIRMAN: Being in Committee, there is no restriction on any Member speaking more than once. In the particular circumstances of the case, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman may realise that I should most undoubtedly allow him to continue the observations which he refrained from making as the result of the opinion that I expressed.

Major NATHAN: I shall be careful not to presume upon the goodwill of the Committee. I was on the question of the procedure of the Deportation Advisory Committee. I made it clear—

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going back to the Advisory Committee, that is a pure act of administration. There are certain people who advise my right hon. Friend. They have nothing to do with the Aliens Order, but give him advice on questions with regard to certain persons whose deportation he might himself be considering. There is nothing in the Aliens Order at all about the Aliens Committee. It is purely an administrative function of my right hon. Friend, and he asks certain gentlemen to be an advisory committee to assist him in the matter. The point is really entirely outside the scope of the discussion and is relevant to the Home Office Vote.

Major NATHAN: The right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) informed the House that it was desirable in certain types of cases that provision should be made to enable representations against an order of deportation to be considered and to allow evidence to be heard. If it were not for this Order, the Home Secretary would have no power of deportation thereunder. There would never be any necessity to appoint a Com-
mittee to advise him. That Committee arises merely by reason of the Order. It is part of the machinery which the Home Office brings into existence for the purpose of deciding whether or not to exercise the right to deport under the Aliens Order. It is part of the machinery which the Home Secretary himself creates for his own guidance.

The CHAIRMAN: That, I think, is a little too remote to be in order. The hon. Member may discuss the action of the Home Secretary in this matter, but I do not think he can discuss those steps which the Home Secretary, not in virtue of any legislation at all, but of his own motive, takes to acquire information in order to assist him in carrying it out. If he appoints a committee to advise him, he does not appoint the committee under this Order at all, and therefore while it may be permissible to discuss what the Home Secretary does as a result of the advice of the Advisory Committee, that is certainly not what the hon. Member is discussing now.

Major NATHAN: I will not attempt to pursue the matter further. The Committee has already extended indulgence for which I am grateful, but I am filled with a little apprehension as to the apparent reluctance of the Home Secretary—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must not attempt to make that use of a point of Order decided by the Chair.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should not be so impertinent as to intervene in the discussion between the hon. Gentleman behind me and the hon. Gentleman opposite on this question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government, referred in his concluding sentence to the initial argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for
Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). It was with regard to the question of the right of asylum. I frankly admit that the question of the preservation of the right of asylum has several difficulties particularly when there is so much depression in our land and when, quite obviously, the Government of the day has to have regard to the rights of our own people in the matter of employment. But the hon. Gentleman, to my great admira-
tion, quoted the dictum of my right hon. Friend Mr. Clynes, and the only point with which we are here concerned, as a matter of dispute between him and us, is the third condition which Mr. Clynes laid down. I think the third point was the right of the country to reject applicants for admission to the country if such admission would be contrary to the country's interest. That as a proposition is quite sound. I do not controvert it at all.
But the point the hon. Gentleman did not answer was how comes it that it is deemed to be not contrary to the interest of the country to admit certain people of a certain social standing, whereas the country's interest immediately jumps into the foreground when people of more advanced political opinions are in question? I admit it is easy for us on either side to generate suspicion that may be unjustified in this matter, but one cannot help but notice it if one reads, say, the gossip columns in the newspapers. Even this evening I have seen a paragraph in an evening paper—I do not mention names because it is not material—referring to a certain foreign gentleman who has been out of this country in his own country undergoing military service for 18 months. Suddenly he comes back to this country. How does he come back? How was it so easy for him to come back? He happens to be a person of the Fascist persuasion.
We have to be quite clear that in the application of these rules, in granting the right of asylum or reserving it, we are holding the balance evenly between these various points of view. That is all one wants to be sure of. I will not make an allegation at all, because I have no ground for doing so. Many of our people with whom we are politically associated entertain the fear—perhaps it is nothing more than a fear and is unjustified, but undoubtedly it is widely entertained—that it is much easier for people of a certain political complexion to come into the country than it is for others. If the hon. Gentleman assures us that such is not the case, we are to that degree very much relieved. We are very anxious on general grounds—the general grounds of liberty—to preserve, as we have always struggled to preserve in this country, the right of asylum. It is something of which our people have been rightly proud, and we should hesitate indeed very long before we give up this right of asylum to people who feel that they can secure within the
borders of our own country that liberty which they are denied elsewhere.
The second point is again on the question of aliens. Leaving now on one side the political refugee, I wish to refer to the alien who is allowed to enter this country for the purpose of engaging in some form of labour. I have been trying to look up figures bearing on this point. According to the statistics given for last year, in Table 2, page 8, I see that a total of something like 12,000 aliens holding Ministry of Labour permits were allowed to enter this country last year. Coming to this year, I find in the three months ending March, 1931, in the footnote at the bottom of the page, that there were 3,098 admitted in connection with Ministry of Labour permits for the first three months of the year. In the succeeding three months I find 6,749 were admitted in connection with Ministry of Labour permits. Looking at those figures, they may strike a person as indicating a very substantial number.
Of course, I admit we must remember on the other side that similarly people from our country are allowed to go by a mutual arrangement to other countries for some sort of occupation there, but the point which my hon. Friend raises still remains one of substance. I gathered from him that domestic servants from abroad are not allowed to come here unless they are paid the appropriate wage that prevails for people of that type in this country. I do not see any justification for bringing all these domestic servants from abroad when there are so many of our own people who would be very glad to have employment, always supposing that these foreign servants have not some extra qualifications in regard to language and so on. That is an extra qualification which weighs in the balance very frequently. When an employer comes here to open a factory haw is it that he is not subject to the same sort of conditions in regard to the wages paid by him to people in this country as is expected of the home employer in respect of a foreign employé who comes here?
The hon. Member said that, generally speaking, these foreign employers who are establishing new factories observe the conditions prevailing in the local industry. I have to-day been in communication with the Trades Union Congress on this point and they say:
Only a few days ago we received a complaint from Yeovil, Somerset, that glove makers were being brought over from France to the detriment of local labour in the district.
To meet the point that these people are coming here to train our own people, this observation is made locally:
The trades council concerned inform us that there is no shortage of skilled labour for the type of work required in the area.
In the absence of some specific provision imposed upon foreign employers, foreign employés are being used to do certain work which people in our own country could perform. If that be so, then clearly it is a case for suggesting that there is an abuse of the alien immigration laws in that respect. I have another case, not quite parallel, but indicating the same sort of tendency. They say:
We are informed that the Long Eaton Cable Company employé works for 7s. to 12s. below the rates for the cable industry.
That is a German-controlled firm. We welcome with everybody else the foundations of new industries in this country, but do not let the foundation of those new industries be carried out by the introduction of alien workers performing tasks which our own people would be able to perform. Secondly, tasks, assuming that our own people cannot perform them for the time being, are being paid for at a rate which is a menace to the standard of wages in the locality. Naturally in times like these, our people look upon the coming of foreign workers with some little resentment, and we cannot blame them.
Hon. Members may argue that a good deal of this is due to the incursion of German workers. It is astonishing what a great proportion of these alien workers are from Switzerland. I do not know what particular demand there is for Swiss workers, unless they happen to be restaurant employés in the catering trade. If that be so, we are entitled to raise a point not of quarrel but of principle. People from my own country of South Wales, young miners, have been brought up to London and have gone to a training establishment in Horseferry Road and, according to information I have had from heads of catering departments, they have equipped themselves in a short period for work as waiters. There are thousands of these young men. Why, then, should we have this incursion of
foreign waiters? It is merely a fashion. This incursion of foreign waiters is on the same lines as the incursion of foreign singers. If a singer is a foreigner named Joneski he is a great man, but if he is just Billy Jones he is simply nobody. This sort of thing tends to create apprehension and resentment.
What we desire from the hon. Member is an assurance that the alien restrictions so long as they remain shall be interpreted so far as political refugees are concerned with equal generosity for all schools of thought. In regard to alien workers, we ask that they should not be brought in here in such a way as to operate to the detriment of the standards of living in our own country. We had intended that our actions should be determined very largely by the reply which the hon. Gentleman gave. I cannot pretend that his answer was fully satisfactory, but judging from the controversy which took place regarding the Rules of Order, it has been rather difficult to discuss as fully as we would have liked these various points in all their bearings. Having regard to the somewhat limited discussion that we have had we do not propose to carry our Motion to a Division.

10.13 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I will not detain the the Committee long, but there are one or two points which were raised by the hon. Member opposite that I should like to try and clear up. I am very glad that he has raised this question because, although this particular Order is one of the most difficult that we have to administer, I hope to be able to show that on the whole his apprehensions are unfounded. He made a legitimate distinction between the alien who comes here in order to be an employé and the alien who comes here to start a factory. As regards the alien who comes to start a factory I can only say that we have no power to prevent a factory being set up. It would be in practice impossible to distinguish between a factory set up with British capital and a factory set up with foreign capital. There are in this country a considerable number of factories owned by foreigners and run entirely by Englishmen. There are factories owned by Englishmen and managed by foreigners.
Between these extremes there is every gradation. It would be impossible to make a distinction between the various types of factories so long as they carry out the law.
In practice we endeavour to secure that foreign factories run by foreigners in this country carry out the fair wage clause. I have in mind a particular factory which was recently set up, where as a result of representations which were made we secured a promise from that factory, a very important factory, that they would pay the general trade union rate applicable to that particular industry, although the factory was set up in an area where the men were wholly unorganised. From inquiries which I made to-day I find that this foreign concern has carried out its obligations and is actually paying higher than the trade union rates. On the whole, foreign factories which have been set up in this country have played the game. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) quoted the single instance of the factory at Mossley. I have made inquiries into that matter and the situation is that Mossley is in a cotton textile area, and at this particular moment the foreign company have set up a woollen factory. The local textile operators were unacquainted with the process of manufacture and, therefore, a certain number of foreigners were introduced in order to teach them the process. In regard to the wages, there are obviously no agreed rates for woollen textile operatives in Mossley. The woollen rates apply to Huddersfield, and, therefore, it is impossible to say whether or no this firm is paying the agreed rates in Mossley because no proper rate is fixed there as this is the only example of its kind.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: They will not allow them to join a trade union.

Mr. HUDSON: In this particular factory there was a, considerable amount of disquiet which ended in a strike in September, and as a result of that strike increased rates of wages were paid to the operatives. The hon. Member says that the firm will not allow them to join a trade union. The latest information I had is that the trade union has 300 members who have signed application forms.

Mr. DAVIES: When was that?

Mr. HUDSON: In September, and as a result of the strike. I hope that the hon. Member is satisfied. I admit frankly that the Mossley case is a difficult one. We have done what is possible but it is an isolated case as far as I know. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) quoted a case in Yeovil. He did not give me notice of it and, therefore, I cannot give a reply, but if he will send me particulars I shall be glad to look into it. The only other point was about the number of aliens who were being admitted. The position is that in 1927 the total number of permits issued by the Ministry of Labour was 6,934, which was increased to 8,466 in 1928 and under the hon. Member's Government to 9,910 in 1929, 11,699 in 1930 and 11,744 in 1931. The number was reduced by the present Government to 8,957 in 1932, to 8,584 in 1933 and to 7,867 this year. The hon. Member also raised the question of waiters, and particularly the number of aliens who were admitted from Switzerland.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am not conscious of having misled the Committee. I quoted figures from the official document, Command Paper 4593, page 8; and I have underlined the figures.

Mr. HUDSON: The difference is that the figures given by the hon. Member were those of the number who landed in a particular year, whereas the figures I have given are the number of actual permits issued by the Department during the year. The hon. Member dealt with the question of aliens from Switzerland. The explanation is that we have admitted a certain number of Swiss watch-makers in the course of the last year or two. The hon. Member also dealt with waiters. They are admitted on an exchange basis. For every waiter admitted here an English waiter is sent abroad in order to learn the language and the trade. Therefore, the more foreign waiters come here to learn English the more Englishmen go abroad to learn the language and the trade abroad. With these explanations I hope the hon. Member will feel satisfied that the administration is not slack.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the trend of the Debate, and in spite of the fact that the answer is not quite as satisfactory as we expected it to be, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 7 to 11.
This is an Amendment to delete the reference in the Schedule to what is termed the Employment of Women and Young Persons Act of 1920. I need hardly say that we have raised this issue on several previous occasions. The only new point that can be put to-night is that our agitation against the continuation of the two shift system in the last few years has produced one thing, and that is that the Government have appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question whether or not this system should continue. I am not going to explain what the two shift system means. When this system was put in operation in 1920 there was plenty of employment in this country, the number of work-people available was short, and employers were allowed to work more than one shift in a factory per day. The Government of the time decided that for an experimental period the two shift system should be allowed to operate, and that women and young persons could be employed between very early hours and late hours during the same day. But there was a provision inserted in the original Act that the experimental period should come to an end within five years. It is now 1924; the Act was passed in 1920, and the five years has extended to 14 years.
We have continued to protest against the continuance of this provision because it seems to us that in view of the great depression in trade there is no longer the same reason for continuing the two shift system in industry and the employment of women and young persons early and late. We are opposing that particular provision to-night so that the Departmental Committee may take it from those of us who are interested in this subject that, although we may not take this Amendment to a Division, that does not mean that our opposition against the practice is not continuing. On this occasion also we shall determine whether we go into the Division Lobby or not by the reply which we receive from the Under-Secretary. The last reply which we received from him satisfied us to the extent of about 73 per cent. which I thought rather an extraordinary achievement on his part and if he does equally well in this case probably we shall not take our army into the Lobby. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are in reserve. A general going into battle never allows the enemy to see the full strength of his forces.
Speaking seriously, perhaps the Under-Secretary has seen a rather important work on this subject by Professor Vernon in which he brings out clearly a point which ought to receive attention from the Home Office. The vote of the personnel employed in a factory five or 10 years ago in favour of the two shift system does not in my opinion present a true picture of the view of the personnel employed in that factory and operating that order to-day. It may be that of 400 people employed in a factory 10 years ago a majority voted in favour of an order but that not one of the 400 employed in that factory to-day was there to vote for or against that order. I think that point was not foreshadowed by those who drafted the law in this respect. I want to make it clear to those who are studying this problem that we are not losing sight of this issue. We are concerned about it and I am sure that the Home Office will allow this Committee access to all available evidence for the purpose of enabling them to arrive at a proper conclusion. I hope also that the workpeople themselves will be able to give evidence to the Committee in such a way that they will not suffer loss of employment as a result of any testimony which they may give.

10.29 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The non. Gentleman has been very kind to me to-night, and I shall try to he equally kind to him. As he has said, there is a departmental committee and my right hon. Friend gave a reply at Question Time dealing with that matter. I imagine that they will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said to-night and probably that would be a sufficient answer to the question which he has put to me though it might seem somewhat discourteous. There was one phrase however which the hon. Gentleman let fall which I do not think ought to pass uncorrected. He said that the two shift system involved the employment of women and young persons early in the morning and late at night and one might imagine that the same person was kept employed from very early until very late. The hon. Gentleman's remark is open to
such an interpretation, but the system does not mean anything of the kind. It means that the shift which works early in the morning will not be the shift which works late at night. The hon. Gentleman did raise the question as to whether, if an order was granted to a certain group on the vote of a certain: panther of employés 10 years ago, it was reasonable for that order to be continued in spite of the fact that the whole personnel of the factory might have been altered. As the Committee is sitting, I do not think my right hon. Friend or I ought to be expected to give an answer to questions of that kind. One may observe though that, after all, if it were known that an order was in existence with regard to a particular factory, the people who went to work there would presumably know all about it, and would consider it one of the conditions which they might have to find themselves carrying out.
When the hon. Member asks whether the workpeople will be allowed to give evidence before the Committee, it is, of course, for the Committee to determine its own procedure, but I cannot conceive of a Committee on this subject not seeking advice from any quarters that are possible. As I see one of the Members of the Committee wagging his head in an affirmative manner behind the hon. Member, I take it that that will be so. We have been fortunate in securing a very good Committee so far as its personnel is concerned, and, therefore, I think we can carry on for the ensuing year with the present system in order to Lave time to consider the report of the Committee when it is available, which I hope will be long before another Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is necessary. That being so, I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with my reply.

10.32 p.m.

Mr RHYS DAVIES: I must repeat what I said before, that the reply is not quite as satisfactory as we hoped, but it is as satisfactory as we can expect from a representative of this Government, and in view of that fact I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DINDINGS AGREEMENT (APPROVAL) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.33 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am glad to conclude with a Bill which the Leader of the Opposition has already said commands the unanimous support of the party opposite. This Bill, which has come to us from another place, where it was equally unanimously treated, asks for authorisation to confirm an agreement for the retrocession to the Federated Malay State of Perak of a small piece of land called the Dindings. Anybody who looks at the map will appreciate that it is an integral part of the State of Perak and very far away from the Settlement of Penang, but it has for many years been administered as part of the Straits Settlement of Penang. The only reason why it ever became separated administratively from Perak was that many years ago, in 1826, it was ceded by the then Sultan of Perak to the East India Company, because, as the Treaty said, the King of Perak had not the force or the means to drive out the pirates and robbers who infested those parts. The Dindings has long ceased to be a refuge for pirates and once that happened there was really every reason why this little bit of territory should once again become part of the State of Perak.
Every Colonial Secretary and every High Commissioner and Governor in the Straits from the time of Joseph Chamberlain, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and two Secretaries of State in Labour Administrations, were all agreed that this ought to be done, but, as usual in these matters, time did not permit. However, we now propose to do it. It is, as a matter of fact, to-day administratively most convenient that this should be done. It is inconvenient that the Dindings should be administered as part of a colony from which it is very distant instead of part of the Protected Federated States to which it naturally belongs. A sort of converse case has now arisen creating a reason for giving it back, which is rather parallel to the reason for which it was originally ceded. The Federated
States to-day have a different tariff from the colony. They have a number of duties and preferences which do not apply in the colony of the Straits Settlements. We therefore get the ridiculous position that this little territory, which is part of the state of Perak, carries with it the tariff of the Straits Settlements colony many miles to the north. The only stuff which can come in is stuff that is going into Perak. The Perak authorities cannot levy the Perak duties upon it because it is part of the colony territory; therefore, the duties cease to be paid and the territory has become a slightly attractive place for smugglers. I hope the whole House will agree with this economical and sound piece of administration as an act of justice. I hope the House will not he less willing to approve of it when it is told that these Federated States, of which Perak is a most important one, have been more than generous in the loyal contributions which they have made to Imperial defence. They have made almost unparalleled financial grants to our defence strength.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: What is the area involved in the proposal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: One hundred and eighty square miles.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: The right hon. Gentleman is very apt in his speeches to attribute agreement with most of the things with which lie deals to other Governments that have gone before. To-night in this matter he brings me in, although I have never heard of the Dindings before. I do not see any particular objection to the Bill, but there are one or two questions which one may ask in regard to a Measure of this kind. It deals with 20,000 people and covers an area of something like 200 square miles. It is quite -an important part of the Federation of the Malay Peninsula and it is a matter of concern as to whether it should
handed back from the British Empire to the Sultan.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend says, "Back from the British Empire." He will appreciate that the Federated Malay States would be greatly insulted if they thought they were regarded as not part of the British Empire.

Mr. LUNN: Up to now the Dindings have been regarded as more under the control of the British Empire than as being under the Sultan of Perak, and I want to know how far the sovereignty of this country is being removed in this matter, whether this is to become an. independent State and whether we have any control or not. Are we beginning to break up the Empire? It seems that what we are doing is selling out this particular quarter of the Federated States for £10,000. If that is the value of that part of the Empire I have nothing more to say, but we ought to be assured that the Empire is not being weakened by reason of this agreement and I think the right hon. Gentleman might give us that assurance. We know that the Malay States have come to the assistance of the Empire very generously on more than one occasion, and we ought to know whether or not there is ever any likelihood of that happening again by reason of the agreement we are now coming to, because it seems there will not be quite as close a connection with the Empire as before.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: If this matter raises no echo in the memory of my hon. Friend opposite it brings back familiar memories to me in connection with an old question. It was my privilege to come before the House some years ago and inform it of an extraordinarily generous donation of £2,000,000 which the rulers of the Malay States were willing to make, and have since made, in order to accelerate the development of the Singapore Base. Both then and before and since the rulers of the Federated Malay States, among whom the Sultan of Perak is certainly not the least progressive or the least generous, have shown themselves in every way loyal partners in the British Commonwealth, and I think we need have not the slightest fear in handing over from direct British administration to Federated Malay administration this small patch of territory, which can only be reasonably administered in the interests of its own inhabitants if it is included in the parent State. My recollection is that the frontier runs quite artificially between islands and creeks, and separates a piece of territory which, on both sides, could only be developed properly for plantation, irrigation and
other purposes if it were under a single administration. I have not the slightest doubt that the actual property interests and other interests of the 20,000 inhabitants, Malay or European or others, have been fully safeguarded. They were safeguarded some years ago and no doubt they have been safeguarded since, so I assert that we need not have the slightest scruple about a transfer Which, I think, is a recognition of the Sultan of Perak's loyalty and generosity and would be greatly appreciated. It would certainly be in the interests of the inhabitants of the territory itself, and in the interests of Perak in so far as smuggling is diminished, and in the interests of this country, also, because the smuggling is to the detriment of the general system of Imperial Preference which is established in the Federated Malay States and is not established, for very good reasons, in a great entrepot like Singapore.

10.44 p.m.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: These minor Colonial Measures usually pass their Second Reading virtually without any comment, the House leaving them to the good sense of the Minister and his advisers, but chance has placed this Measure in a somewhat different category. I ask the House to recall, going back to the period before the Summer Adjournment when the Lord President of the Council was announcing the business to be taken after the Recess, that when he came to the word "Dindings" on the Paper before him he could evidently hardly believe his eyes. He required considerable sotto voce reassurance from the Patronage Secretary before he would proceed with its pronunciation. Several newspapers seized upon this small human incident as a basis for paragraphs, and, constantly, for a short time the Dindings had greatness thrust upon them. By reason of having a comic name the Dindings became the subject of speculation for one week in July. Admittedly the Dindings is only a small area in Malaya of some 183 square miles. It is adjacent to the State of Perak and it is to be handed back to the Sultan of Perak.
But in spite of what has been said by the Minister and also by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and at the cost of being thought somewhat stubborn, I still ask, Why is this
territory being handed back? Everyone is prepared to accept the Sultan of Perak as a most enlightened native ruler, but I for one desire to get behind the somewhat flowery Oriental language of the Treaty which assigns this transfer to "a token of the friendship which His Majesty's Government bears towards His Highness," and to ascertain exactly why the transfer is taking place. I was very interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister had to say in explanation of the necessity of this transfer. He told us—it was very interesting to hear it—that the Treaties of 1826 and 1874 were in effect only intended to be temporary in their nature and related to the state of piracy at or before that time which this country was asked to suppress and which no longer exists. He also told us that the Dindings were integrally and geographically a part of the State of Perak and consequently ought to be returned to it, and that the State has subscribed largely to the Singapore base, while certain fiscal reasons were also introduced into his arguments—fiscal anomalies which, I think, could easily be altered.
In spite of all this I feel that such arguments do not really carry very much weight in the present stage of the Colonial development of our Empire. This area, small as it may be, whenall is said and done, is being transferred from the Sovereignty of the British Empire, which confers upon the native inhabitants of that district the benefits of a vast, enlightened and experienced administrative machine, to the Sovereignty of a native ruler who has no such machine at his command.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course he has.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Then I maintain that you are handing the inhabitants of the Dindings over to a rule which, of necessity, must be of less benefit to them than our own. I consider this to be a retrograde step. No doubt the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he replies, will tell me that the British Government keeps a Resident in the State of Perak and that the Sultan is bound by Treaty to take the advice of the Resident. But it is common knowledge and I think very natural and right in these cases, that the Resident is always l0th to interfere with the native
ruler unless major issues are involved. Minor oppressions are inclined to be overlooked. I believe it is now generally agreed by all parties in this House that the responsibilities of Empire, sometimes known as "the white man's burden," should be exercised if not primarily on their behalf at least to the best advantage of the native inhabitants in the district concerned. So far as I can see this main condition of our Imperial stewardship will not be complied with in this Bill. Even the Secretary of State, when he brought forward certain justifications for this Bill, did not presume to suggest that the Dindings would be better administered under the rule of the Sultan of Perak than they would be by the Government of the Straits Settlements. I think it stands to reason that would be unlikely. This is no ultra-Imperialism and no jingoism. My surprise at the inadequacy of the reasons which have caused the Government to take a step so little in accord with the present principles of Colonial administration is only equalled by my surprise at the complacency of the majority of the Opposition on this occasion. In the past Members of the Socialist party, and especially Members of the Liberal party, have been quick to arrogate to themselves the function of acting as protectors of the aborigines. On this occasion—I do not know the reason why—they seem content to let the Dindings pass by on the other side.
I would point out that there are certain wider issues involved which apparently have not yet been realised. I would ask the House to recognise that since the decision to create a naval base at Singapore all the territories in the Malay Peninsula have attained a far greater strategic importance than ever they possessed before. The Far East is to-day in a state that everybody regards as to put in mildly disquieting. Were it not so I presume we should not be making every effort to complete as quickly as we can a base at Singapore to strengthen our naval communications. But I would ask the House to realise this significant point —that in the extreme North, in Siamese Territory, the Malay Peninsula narrows at the Isthmus of Kra to a matter of some 60 miles. The project for the building of a canal at this point by the Siamese, often mooted, is as many of us
know about to be introduced again and I understand on the best authority that it is seriously proposed to construct this canal if finances will allow it and there is a suggestion of financial assistance from the Japanese. Such a back-door enabling any battle fleet to sidetrack Singapore to provide, so to speak, a bypass by a much shorter route could not but have a profound effect on the local strategical situation.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Has my hon. and gallant Friend really found out all about this canal, and the absolute impossibility of making it owing to the sand-bars outside?

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: I can only say that I am rather interested in this subject because quite recently I have visited that part of the world, and have all this information at first-hand. The comparison with what I am suggesting—and it is not, perhaps, such a complete fabrication as might be thought—is the example of the construction of the Panama Canal, which completely altered naval strategy in the Western Hemisphere, and I think I have a right to draw the attention of the House to these facts so that it may have an opportunity of looking ahead. I do not intend to be an alarmist, or, for that matter, to asperse the good intentions of a Foreign Power, anyhow, if we desired to prevent the building of such a canal, it would be impossible for us to do so. But the proposal to transfer about 200 miles of territory in that vicinity demands, I think, consideration of these factors.
Our situation in Malaya to-day can be compared somewhat to a pyramid resting rather uneasily upon its apex, the apex being Singapore. Above the comparatively small area of the Straits Settlements themselves lie the Federated Malay States. Most of these States have been under the rule of Siam at various times in their history, and authorities on all hands seem to agree that their international sympathies are still with Siam. The Siamese have much in common with the Japanese. Siam, as we all know from recent events, is very discontented to-day.
Beyond the Federated Malay States come the Unfederated Malay States, and it may surprise the House to be reminded that until 1919 these Unfederated Malay States had for centuries been de-
pendencies of Siam, and that they were reluctant to depart from their old allegiance. I admit that Siam by herself is unlikely to prove to be any danger to the Empire, but I think we have the right to consider that Siam, as the catspaw of some greater Power, could very easily prove to be a serious menace, especially in view of the influence that she has throughout the Malay States. That being so, it would in my opinion appear to be scarcely a happy moment for this country to divest itself of one of the few areas in the Straits Settlements which are under direct British control, and, therefore, I trust that I have made out on two points a case based on admitted principles, and one that is worthy of some consideration from the Minister.

10.59 p.m.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: As one who has lived in these parts, I rather regret the sentiments which have been expressed by one of our colleagues in the House who has merely paid a visit there. The other day I was in Athens, also for the first time, and when I got on board again an old lady came up to me and said: "Sir Edward, I am very disappointed. My friends at home told me that I should go and see the Acropolis. I went to see it, but I found nothing but a ruin." She had evidently expected to find other things. As we who have lived in these parts know, the Sultan of Perak is one of the most enlightened, patriotic men in the Empire. The natives also are loyal to the British Crown and no other. It is a very great pity that it should get about that any Member of the House of Commons who has been on a short visit should have come back with the impression that subjects of the British realm are not perfectly loyal but are harking back to loyalty to Siam, from which, I think, he said they originated.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: If my hon. Friend reads my remarks to-morrow he will find that I made no mention of the inhabitants of Perak being disloyal in any way to our Empire.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: I shall be very pleased, if I have time, to read the report but I hope more sincerely that the people at the other end of the world will not read it, which is still more important. I am rather sensitive on these matters and the impression that I got was that that speech was not in the best interests of
the Empire or of the people in the Malay States. One hears people in those parts making a complaint about this, that or the other, but a great number of people who live in those countries and know very little about what is going on and are apt to. complain about things that do not really exist. I believe this Measure is in the best interests of all concerned.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I got a somewhat different impression of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech. I think he made it very clear that he considered that the Sultan of Perak is a most enlightened ruler and a very loyal subject, and has proved it on many occasions. I think my hon. and gallant Friend was quite right to raise the points he did. We are apt late at night to pass things through without much discussion which arc well worth a certain amount of thinking over. Here we are taking a fairly important step. It may be only on a small scale, but it applies to 20,000 people who are at present controlled direct through the Colonial Office. They are being handed over, as I think quite rightly, to an admittedly friendly State, but before we definitely decide to take that step, I think it is advisable to get a little clearer information from the Secretary of State on one or two matters. I understand that it is the custom in the Malay States to rule sometimes through the smaller chieftains in the various States. Of course, the administration is under the Sultan and his Council and the Resident Commissioner, but what exactly is the situation in the case of the Dindings? For instance, will there be any intermediate ruler over them or will they be governed direct from headquarters? Will there be any petty chieftain? Furthermore, has my right hon. Friend any information as to what are the feelings of the people of the territory to be receded to Perak? Has he any idea as to whether they feel they will be quite happy and contented after the country has been ceded to Perak?
There are two points of a somewhat technical nature. In the Schedule to the Bill, which contains the agreement, I notice in Clause 2 it says that nothing in the agreement shall operate to affect the nationality of any persons domiciled in the Dindings. Does that mean that they still remain direct British subjects and
not Protected British subjects? If so, it seems rather a curious arrangement, which I do not quite understand. If they are in future to be under the rule of the Sultan of Perak, that is to say, subjects of a British Protectorate, it seems a very odd arrangement that they should at the same time remain British subjects direct. The second point is in Clause 5 which says that the Government of Perak will pass such legislation as may be necessary to make the law of Perak applicable as from the date of the entering into force of the agreement. That is only to be expected, but can my right hon. Friend reassure us that a change over from the ordinary law applicable in the Straits Settlements to the law of Perak will not entail any hardship on the inhabitants of the district which is being handed over?

11.7 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very glad to answer these questions. I think there is rather a misconception in the minds of one or two Members who have spoken as to what is the type of administration existing in the Federated Malay States. The hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) spoke of a sort of alien administration of a very inferior character. It is nothing of the sort, and anybody with any knowledge of the administration of the Federated Malay States, particularly a State like Perak, in which great businesses are carried on, knows that it is a unified service, the same Civil Service, changed about from the Colony to the Malay States, with an able Resident and an efficient Civil Service. If I had put to me by the hon. Member the invidious question as to whether I thought the administration was better in the Malay States than in a Crown Colony, upon my soul I should find it very difficult to answer. The only answer is that it is equally good in both.

Mr. AMERY: It is the same.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is the same, and therefore it is the same standard. The man who is the Governor of the Straits Settlements is the High Commissioner for the States. It is the same person and the policy is the same throughout. I wish before the hon. Gentleman speaks on the matter he would become a little acquainted with the
case. Under the Treaty by which the Federated Malay States come under the protection and become part of the British Empire, it is the duty and the obligation of the Sultan to take the advice and to act upon the advice of the Resident, who takes his instructions from the High Commissioner on every single question, except Malay religion and custom. What in effect does happen is that a most admirable system of administration, with social services, schools and so on, exists in the Federated States exactly as in any of the Crown Colonies. Therefore, the suggestion that what is being done is putting people away from the benefits of British rule and placing them under alien domination is utterly beside the point. I agree with everything that has been said on the question of loyalty by my hon. Friend who has had so much experience in these parts. In regard to the other point, as to what the administration is likely to be in the future, there is a sort of District Council at the present time, and I have not the least doubt that the District Council will act in the future, but what will happen further will he that there will now be some incentive to develop a little more, because it will be linked up with the State of which it is naturally and geographically a part, and it will be much more convenient that it should be linked up in that way and worked directly through the Resident than through an officer in Penang, a very long way off.
With regard to Article II I shall not go into the very subtle distinction between a British subject and a British protected person, but the Article does what it says. Everybody who is there at the present time and who is a British subject, will remain a British subject in the technical sense of the term. Lastly, from the point of view of the great strategic danger which we are encountering, I assure the House that this proposal was not introduced without the full approval of the Defence Services, who are quite satisfied. We have effective control over any strategic measures that may be necessary. From all that we know of the past we can rely not only on our legal position but on the intense loyalty of the Sultan and inhabitants to give us the greatest assistance in any matter of defence.

11.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: There is one question which has not been answered, and that is, what are the feelings of the people who are being handed over?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have every reason to believe, from all that I have heard from the High Commissioner, that they are perfectly content. In fact they will find no difference at all because really it will be the same administration under which they live now.

Sir W. ALLEN: It is important that we should be certain on this point because we have had previous experience of territories of the British Empire being handed over under the delusion that the people desired it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot pretend that there has been a plebiscite, but every High Commissioner for a very long time past has most strongly recommended this step as in the best interests of the people themselves.

Sir W. ALLEN: I appreciate that we were going to do the same thing in India and Egypt simply because the Government were under the impression that the people of India and Egypt desired it. We must be very particular about this portion of the Empire as to whether the residents there require this change to be made. The Debate has raised a number of anomalies. We find great Imperialists among hon. Members opposite; a great
desire to retain the integrity of the Empire. That has not happened before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The distinguished Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly referred to himself as an anti-Imperialist. That has been their attitude in the past. Now we have their detestation of the idea of breaking up the Empire. The present Government who appeared at one time to be following the ideas of hon. Members opposite in trying to break up the British Empire are now trying to consolidate the Empire. I want to be sure that the inhabitants of this portion of the British Empire really desire this change, and all that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us is that the information from the High Commissioner is that it is quite desired by them. I do not know whether the House is satisfied, but I am not.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Dr. Morris-Jones.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.